Davis v. Granger et al

Filing 48

MEMORANDUM RULING: The order granting leave to amend (doc 32 ) is RESCINDED, and doc 30 MOTION to Amend/Correct filed by Nolan C Davis, Sr is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kathleen Kay on 5/9/2013. (crt,Gregory, C)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAKE CHARLES DIVISION

NOLAN C. DAVIS, SR.

:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:12-cv-1746

VERSUS

:

JUDGE MINALDI

DANIEL GRANGER, ET AL

:

MAGISTRATE JUDGE KAY

MEMORANDUM RULING RESCINDING
PREVIOUS ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
AMEND AND DENYING THE MOTION TO AMEND

Before the court is the civil rights complaint by plaintiff, Nolan C. Davis, Jr. Plaintiff is a
prisoner in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, and he is
housed at the Allen Correctional Center (“ALC”). He has previously been granted leave to
proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Doc. 8.
Plaintiff filed suit on June 18, 2012, and he alleged in his original complaint that he is
housed in an environment wherein he is subjected him to environmental tobacco smoke (“ETS”).
Doc. 5. The petition underwent an initial review process, and ultimately, the undersigned
ordered that the defendants be served with process. Doc. 27.
After service was ordered, plaintiff moved to amend his complaint. Doc. 30. Plaintiff
alleged in his amended complaint that he has been served spoiled breakfast sausage at several
meals. He alleges that the act of serving spoiled food (and the failure to serve fresh food)
constitutes deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
The undersigned granted plaintiff’s motion to amend. Doc. 32. However, upon further
consideration, the undersigned concludes that granting leave to amend was unwarranted. As
such, the previous order [doc. 32] is RESCINDED, and the motion [doc. 30] is DENIED.
‐1‐ 

Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the permissive joinder of
defendants. It provides that several persons may be joined as defendants in the same action if
both of the following are satisfied:
(A) Any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the
alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence,
or series of transactions or occurrences; and
(B) Any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2).
The original petition complains of second-hand smoke, while the latter complains of the
breakfast sausage. Thus, the amended petition does not amend the allegations of the original
petition; rather, it makes entirely new allegations.

Plaintiff now seeks relief for damages

allegedly caused by a completely unrelated incident, or as the Federal Rules describe it—a
separate “occurrence.”
The original petition asserts claims against eight (8) defendants, while the amended
petition names two (2) defendants. Seven (7) of the defendants are unique to the original
petition, while one (1) defendant, Shelton Manuel, is unique to the second petition. Only
defendant Terrell is common to both the original and amended petitions.
Plaintiff cannot satisfy the first requirement of permissive joinder of defendants because
the allegations of the amended petition are wholly unrelated to the allegations of the original
petition. He does not assert any right to relief against defendant Manuel that is even remotely
related to the grounds for relief asserted against the seven (7) defendants unique to the original
petition. As such, permissive joinder of defendants is unwarranted. See e.g. Thompson v. Boggs,
33 F.3d 847, 858 (7th Cir. 1994) (in a civil rights case, joinder of second properly denied where
the following factors would create jury confusion: the two alleged incidents were separated by

‐2‐ 

two years; the injury claims were separate and distinct; and the second complaint would require
joinder of additional police officers as defendants).
Policy considerations also counsel in favor of denying plaintiff leave to amend. The
original petition underwent an initial review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) because
plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The amended petition has not
been subjected to the screening process. The court has a vested interest in ensuring that the
initial screening process is not circumvented. Ultimately, plaintiff may still pursue his claim by
filing a separate suit.
Accordingly, the order granting leave to amend [doc. 32] is RESCINDED, and the
motion for leave [doc. 30] is DENIED.
THUS DONE this 9th day of May, 2013.

‐3‐