Carrothers v. Perkins et al

Filing 58

ORDER denying 35 Motion to Amend/Correct; granting in part and denying in part 44 Motion ; denying 49 Motion for Default Judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker on November 7, 2014. (ES)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
WESTERN DIVISION
ANTONIO CARROTHERS
v.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:13cv205-KS-MTP

MARY GROOM, et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

BEFORE THE COURT are several motions filed by Plaintiff Antonio Carrothers. Following
an omnibus hearing in this case, and after careful consideration of the motions and applicable law,
the Court finds and orders as follows.
First, Plaintiff requests that nineteen additional defendants and several more claims be added
to this lawsuit. The proposed defendants appear to be Wilkinson County Correctional Facility
(“WCCF”) employees, and the proposed claims allege a failure to protect, denial of adequate dental
and psychological treatment, denial of due process, discrimination and unequal treatment. See
Motion [35].
The Court declines to add defendants whose actions are not clearly connected to the
underlying factual basis of Plaintiff’s lawsuit. See Omnibus Order [58]. Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 20 provides that “[p]ersons . . . may be joined in one action as defendants if . . . any
question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.” FED. R. CIV. PRO. 20; see
also Chandler v. Lee, 2012 WL 3597551 (S.D. Miss. Aug. 20, 2012) (denying prisoner plaintiff’s
motion to amend where proposed claims against new defendant did not stem from the same
transaction or occurrences as those in the initial complaint). Even if Plaintiff had alleged common
questions of law or fact as to the proposed defendants, the Court has discretion under Rule 20 “to
control the scope of a lawsuit by limiting the number of defendants a plaintiff may hail into court

in a particular case.” Tuft v. Texas, 397 Fed. App’x 59, 61 (5th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s
motion to amend will be denied. Plaintiff may file a separate action to address these claims if he so
chooses.
Second, Plaintiff moves for default judgment against Defendant Strickland. See Motion [49].
However, the record clearly reflects that Defendant Strickland timely answered, and Plaintiff
withdrew the motion at the hearing. See Answer [47]. Accordingly, this motion will be denied as
moot.
Finally, Plaintiff requests the production of various documents. See Motion [44].
Specifically, the Plaintiff requests his sick call requests, medical records, segregation cards, video
of his unit from June 2012 to July 2013, Defendants’ job titles and duties, and names of all the
inmates in his unit from June 2012 to July 2013. The Court outlined the discovery that will be
allowed in this matter in the Omnibus Order [58]. Insofar that Plaintiff’s requests coincide with
Order [58], the Motion will be granted. In all other respects, the motion is denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend [35] is DENIED.
2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment [49] is DENIED as moot.
3. Plaintiff’s Motion [44] for Documents is GRANTED only to the extent set forth in the
Omnibus Order [58] in this case. The remainder of the Motion is DENIED.
SO ORDERED this the 7th day of October, 2014.
s/ Michael T. Parker
United States Magistrate Judge