Patten v. City of Haverhill

Filing 9

Judge Richard G. Stearns: ORDER entered. ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE(PSSA, 3)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-10726-RGS
RONALD PATTEN
v.
CITY OF HAVERHILL
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
August 21, 2015
STEARNS, D.J.
For the reasons stated below, this action is dismissed without prejudice.
On May 14, 2015, the Court ordered plaintiff Ronald Patten to file an
amended complaint. The Court instructed Patten to, inter alia, clearly
identify the defendants and the legal claim against each party. The Court also
explained that, to the extent he brought claims against multiple defendants,
the claims had to “aris[e] out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of
transactions or occurrences.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2)(A).
The amended complaint does not comply with the requirements set forth
in the Court’s May 14, 2015 order. As with the original complaint, the
amended pleading includes allegations of misconduct by several persons, but
Patten has not indicated whether one, some, or all of them are defendants. He
also has not identified the legal claims he is bringing against them, and no
clear theory of liability under federal law is suggested by the alleged facts.
This failure to comply with the basic requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure makes it impossible for the Court to issue summonses
or for a party to respond to the amended complaint.
Further, to the extent that Patten intended that every alleged wrong-doer
mentioned in the amended complaint be a defendant, the defendants are
improperly joined in a single action. The plaintiff’s varied grievances against
the persons identified in the amended complaint do not “aris[e] out of the
same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2)(A).
Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. This
order is a final order of dismissal.

SO ORDERED.
/s/ Richard G. Stearns
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2