Carter et al v. Harrison et al
Filing
12
ORDER severing Plaintiffs Spain and Lee and their claims, transferring their claims to the Western District of Michigan, amending the caption, and directing Plaintiff Carter to file an amended complaint. Signed by District Judge Gershwin A. Drain. (DPer)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JEREMY CARTER,
PATRICK EUGENE JAMAR SPAIN,
AARON LAVELLE LEE,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Case No. 15-cv-10347
Hon. Gershwin A. Drain
OAKLAND COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT
AND JAIL, DETECTIVE T. HARRISON,
ST. JOSEPH COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT
AND JAIL, CORY SMITH, KALAMAZOO COUNTY
SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT AND JAIL,
DEPUTY AMPEY,
Defendants.
_______________________________________________/
ORDER SEVERING PLAINTIFFS SPAIN AND LEE AND THEIR CLAIMS
FROM THIS ACTION, TRANSFERRING THEIR CLAIMS TO THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN, AMENDING THE CAPTION,
AND DIRECTING PLAINTIFF CARTER TO FILE
AN AMENDED COMPLAINT
I. INTRODUCTION
This is a pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiffs are state
prisoners at Chippewa Correctional Facility in Kincheloe, Michigan. The defendants are law
enforcement entities and officials. Plaintiffs allege in their joint complaint that the defendants
arrested them without a warrant and failed to provide them with a prompt probable cause
hearing.
More specifically, plaintiff Jeremy Carter (“Carter”) alleges that, on April 23, 2013,
defendant, Detective T. Harrison of the Troy Police Department, arrested him without a warrant
following a traffic stop. Carter claims that he was charged with a drug crime and held in the
Oakland County Jail for two days, but then released. He further alleges that a criminal complaint
was not authorized until eight months later, on December 16, 2013, and that there was no judicial
determination of probable cause in the interim.
Plaintiff Patrick Eugene Jamar Spain (“Spain”) alleges that, on July 8, 2013, defendant
Cory Smith of the Three Rivers Police Department arrested him without a warrant on charges of
first-degree home invasion and assault with a dangerous weapon. Spain contends that neither
Smith nor St. Joseph County arranged to have him brought before a judicial officer for a
probable cause hearing.
Plaintiff Aaron Lavelle Lee (“Lee”) alleges that, on September 3, 2013, Deputy Sheriff
Ampey of the Kalamazoo County Sheriff’s Department arrested him without a warrant for
assault. Lee claims that he was detained in the Kalamazoo County Jail from September 3, 2013,
until September 6, 2013, when charges were brought against him. He asserts that during those
three days, no effort was made to present a complaint to a judicial officer for a prompt
determination of probable cause.
All three plaintiffs complain that the defendants’ failure to provide them with a prompt
probable cause hearing following their warrantless arrests violated their rights under the Fourth
Amendment to the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs seek money damages from the arresting
officers and their respective counties.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Joinder
The threshold question is whether the plaintiffs have properly joined their claims in one
complaint. “A party . . . may join . . . as many claims as it has against an opposing party,” Fed.
2
R. Civ. P. 18(a), but plaintiffs may join in one action as plaintiffs only if (1) “they assert any
right to relief . . . arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or
occurrences” and (2) “any question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs will arise in the
action.” FED. R. CIV. P. 20(a)(1). Multiple plaintiffs do not pass this two-part test “where each
plaintiff provides a different factual background, giving rise to their mutual’ cause of action.”
Harris v. Gerth, No. 08-CV-12374, 2008 WL 5424134, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 30, 2008)
(unpublished) (citing Coughlin v. Rogers, 130 F.3d 1348, 1350 (9th Cir. 1997), and Abdelkarim
v. Gonzales, No. 06-14436, 2007 WL 1284924, at *4-5 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 30, 2007)).
Defendants “may be joined in one action as defendants if any right to relief is asserted
against them . . . arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or
occurrences.” FED. R. CIV. P. 20(a)(2). “Unrelated claims against different defendants belong in
different suits . . . .” George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007).
In determining whether claims arise from the same transaction or occurrence, courts
looks to: “the time period during which the alleged acts occurred; whether the acts ... are related;
whether more than one act ... is alleged; whether the same supervisors were involved; and
whether the defendants were at different geographical locations.” Proctor v. Applegate, 661
F.Supp.2d 743, 778 (E.D. Mich. 2009) (quoting Nali v. Mich. Dep’t of Corr., No. 07–10831,
2007 WL 4465247, at *3 (E.D.Mich. Dec.18, 2007) (citing Brown v. Worthington Steel, Inc., 211
F.R.D. 320, 323-25 (S.D. Ohio 2002)).
Each of the three plaintiffs here has alleged facts involving only the officer who arrested
him and the county where the arrest occurred. The time periods for the acts and omissions differ
for each plaintiff, and even though the plaintiffs allege a common question of law, the facts are
3
different for each plaintiff. Additionally, each set of defendants’ factual circumstances, which
gives rise to each claim, is in a different geographical location. Because the plaintiffs have not
asserted any right to relief arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or serious of
transactions or occurrence, they are improperly joined together in this action. They have not
satisfied the transactional relatedness prong of Rule 20(a)(1).
For the same reason, the three sets of defendants are improperly joined in this action.
The rights to relief asserted against them did not arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or
series of transactions or occurrences. “Rule 20(a) seeks to promote judicial economy, a goal that
is not served where, as here, the incidents underlying the claims are wholly separate, so as to
require entirely different proof.” Brown v. Caruso, No. 1:13-CV-12475, 2013 WL 5423708, at
*2 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 26, 2013).
B. Remedy and Venue
“Misjoinder of parties is not a ground for dismissing an action,” but “the Court may at
any time, on just terms, add or drop a party” and “sever any claim against a party.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 21. The Court considers the proper venue for an action when making a determination on
whether to drop a party or sever claims. In civil actions, the proper venue is the judicial district
where (1) any defendant resides if all defendants reside in the state where the district is located,
(2) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or (3) any
defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). The Court may,
“[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice,” “transfer any civil
action to any other district or division where it might have been brought . . . .” 28 U.S.C. §
1404(a).
4
The events or omissions giving rise to Spain’s claims occurred in St. Joseph County, and
the events or omissions giving rise to Lee’s claims occurred in Kalamazoo County. St. Joseph
County and Kalamazoo County lie in the Southern Division of the Western District of Michigan.
See 28 U.S.C. § 102(b)(1). Thus, the proper venue for Spain and Lee’s claims is the Western
District of Michigan. For the convenience of the parties and witnesses, and in the interest of
justice, a transfer of their claims to the Western District of Michigan is appropriate.
III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Some of the plaintiffs and defendants were improperly joined in this action, and venue
for Spain and Lee’s claims is proper in the Western District of Michigan. The Court therefore
ORDERS the following:
Plaintiffs Patrick Eugene Jamar Spain and Aaron Lavelle Lee, as well as, defendants
Cory Smith, St. Joseph County Sheriff’s Department and Jail, Deputy Ampey, and Kalamazoo
County Sheriff’s Department and Jail are SEVERED from this action pursuant to Rule 21. The
Clerk of the Court shall terminate plaintiffs Spain and Lee and defendants Cory Smith, St.
Joseph County Sheriff’s Department and Jail, Deputy Ampey, and Kalamazoo County Sheriff’s
Department and Jail from this action.
The Clerk of the Court shall TRANSFER Spain and Lee’s claims against Cory Smith, St.
Joseph County Sheriff’s Department and Jail, Deputy Ampey, and Kalamazoo County Sheriff’s
Department and Jail to the Southern Division of the Western District of Michigan.
The caption to this case is HEREBY AMENDED to read “Jeremy Carter v. T. Harrison
and Oakland County, Michigan.”
5
Plaintiff Jeremy Carter is ORDERED to file an amended complaint raising only his
claims against defendants T. Harrison and Oakland County, Michigan.
Carter’s failure to
comply with this order within sixty (60) days of the date of this order could result in the
dismissal of this action.
/s/Gershwin A Drain
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: February 23, 2015
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?