Mitchell v. Cox et al

Filing 40

ORDER Denying 16 Motion for Permission to Join In Re John B. Odoms. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 8/7/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF; CC: Odoms - SLR)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

TARZ MITCHELL,

10

Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.

11
12

Case No. 2:12-cv-00499-MMD-NJK

GREG COX, et al.,
Defendants.

13

This removed prisoner civil rights action comes before the Court on a motion for

14
15

permissive joinder by another inmate at a different institution (dkt. no. 16).

16

I.

BACKGROUND

17

Movant John B. Odoms seeks to join in an action filed by plaintiff Tarz Mitchell.

18

At the time that the motion for joinder was filed, Mitchell sought to present

19

multiple constitutional claims arising out of, inter alia, an alleged electrical fire in B wing

20

of Unit 3 at Southern Desert Correctional Center (“Southern Desert”) on March 23,

21

2011. He alleged, inter alia, that conditions at Southern Desert posed a fire hazard

22

because: (a) there were no water sprinklers in the units; and (b) inmates were required

23

by prison operating procedures to remain behind a locked unit wing gate unless they

24

went out on the yard during free time.

25

including claims for alleged denial of adequate medical care following the fire and for

26

allegedly being placed in administrative segregation in retaliation for his pursuit of

27

grievances. He sought damages as well as injunctive relief. See dkt. no. 13, at 2-4

28

(screening order); dkt. no. 1-2 (original complaint). Mitchell since has filed an amended

He presented multiple additional claims,

1

complaint (dkt. no. 39) in response to a screening order, which asserts multiple

2

additional claims pertaining only to Mitchell individually and which currently is pending

3

for screening.

4

Neither plaintiff Mitchell nor movant Odoms currently are housed at Southern

5

Desert. Nor are they incarcerated in the same facility currently. Mitchell currently is

6

held at High Desert State Prison (“High Desert”), in the southern end of the state

7

approximately an hour drive from Las Vegas, Nevada.

8

Northern Nevada Correctional Center (“NNCC”), a full day drive away at the other end

9

of the state, near Reno, Nevada.

Odoms currently is held at

10

Movant Odoms did not present a pleading with claims with his motion. Further,

11

given the logistics associated with the distances referenced in the preceding paragraph,

12

he clearly has not signed, or would have a practical opportunity to review and sign, as

13

co-plaintiff on any of plaintiff Mitchell’s pleadings.
Odoms makes the following factual assertions in his motion.

14

According to

15

Odoms, he was transferred from High Desert to Southern Desert in February 2012 ─

16

nearly a full year after the alleged March 23, 2011, fire involving Mitchell. He alleges

17

that he was placed in B wing of Unit 1 and also in Unit 2 at some undefined point ─

18

different units than the Unit 3-B in which Mitchell previously was housed.

19

Odoms refers to the alleged absence of water sprinklers in the units, but he then

20

asserts that, “more important,” there was no desk or chair to sit on in the cell and that

21

the lighting was poor. He refers additionally to a lack of handicap showers. Odoms

22

maintains, however, that the “true danger” presented was overcrowding in Units 1 and

23

2, which he alleges violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and an alleged building

24

code.

25

Odoms prays for joinder but presents no request for relief specifying what relief

26

that he might seek on any underlying constitutional claims that he might wish to assert.

27

Nor does he present any allegations tending to establish that he currently can present

28

///
2

1

justiciable claims for injunctive relief regarding alleged conditions at Southern Desert at

2

a time when he instead is incarcerated at NNNC.

3

II.

4

DISCUSSION
Rule 20(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

5

(1) Plaintiffs. Persons may join in one action as plaintiffs if:

6

(A)

they assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the

7

alternative with respect to or arising out of the same

8

transaction, occurrence, or series of

9

occurrences; and

10
11

(B)

transactions or

any question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs will arise
in the action.

12

Odoms has not satisfied this standard for permissive joinder. His claims arise

13

out of his incarceration at a different time and in different units than the unit in which

14

Mitchell was incarcerated, and he was not even housed at Southern Desert when the

15

alleged March 23, 2011, fire occurred. The only common feature presented in the two

16

inmates’ papers is that both refer to the absence of water sprinklers. However, Mitchell

17

refers to this condition in the context of an alleged actual fire in Unit 3-B in which he

18

claims he was injured through smoke inhalation. Odoms refers to this condition without

19

any indication of having suffered any actual injury or compensable damage as a result

20

and in a situation where he does not present a justiciable claim for injunctive relief given

21

that he is no longer at the facility. He would not be able to pursue a viable claim in this

22

regard. There thus is no viable commonality between claims presented by Mitchell and

23

claims presented by Odoms vis-à-vis water sprinklers.

24

The claims and allegations presented by Mitchell and Odoms otherwise present

25

no common transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences, as each

26

inmate refers to different conditions and occurrences in different units that did not

27

involve the other inmate. A viable basis for permissive joinder does not arise merely

28

because the inmates each were housed at one time or another at Southern Desert and
3

1

both complain of sundry conditions or occurrences at Southern Desert. If Odoms

2

satisfied Rule 20(a)(1) based on the showing made, then essentially any inmate who

3

had a pending claim regarding conditions or occurrences at Southern Desert at any time

4

would have a basis for permissive joinder in this action. That is not the law.

5

Moreover, even if the Court were to assume that Odoms had satisfied the

6

standard for permissive joinder, which he has not, the Court in any event would sever

7

the claims and plaintiffs into separate actions.

8

As the Court discussed in the July 1, 2013, ruling in Quintero v. Palmer, Case

9

No. 3:13-cv-00008-MMD-VPC, the joinder rules do not eliminate the requirement that

10

each prisoner ultimately must pay a full filing fee of $350.00 pursuant to the Prison

11

Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). Assuming satisfaction of that requirement, the normal

12

joinder rules otherwise apply fully in prisoner litigation to permit joinder of claims by

13

multiple co-plaintiff prisoners. However, the district court nonetheless retains discretion

14

under Rule 21 to sever claims and parties where severance would serve the ends of

15

justice and further the prompt and efficient disposition of the litigation.

16

In the present case, it requires no extensive analysis to come to the readily

17

apparent conclusion that trying the extensively unrelated claims of Mitchell and Odoms

18

together neither would serve the ends of justice nor further the prompt and efficient

19

disposition of the litigation. There is no practically realistic way for Mitchell and Odoms

20

to pursue their claims jointly in the same litigation. The Court is presented with plaintiffs

21

housed in two different institutions pursuing claims regarding yet a third institution.

22

There are no practical means for the two inmates to jointly prepare, review and sign

23

filings. In that regard, the Court is not going to order the state corrections department to

24

transfer one or both inmates and thereafter house them together at the same institution

25

during the life of the case so that they can jointly pursue such widely disparate claims

26

from the same institution. Odoms’ mere request to pursue such claims in the same

27

action does not override the department’s interests in the efficient and secure

28

administration of a large state prison system. Further, neither inmate is an attorney
4

1

such that neither inmate may sign filings for the other. There thus is no reasonably

2

plausibly available manner for this matter to be litigated as a joint action.

3

Accordingly, in the alternative, even if Odoms otherwise had established a basis

4

for permissive joinder under Rule 20(a)(1), which he has not, and had satisfied the filing

5

fee requirement, which he has not, the Court would sever the claims and plaintiffs under

6

Rule 21.

7

III.

8
9

CONCLUSION
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for permissive joinder (dkt. no.

16) is DENIED.

10

The Clerk additionally shall send a hard copy of this order to movant Odoms at

11

the Northern Nevada Correctional Center address and shall note said transmittal in the

12

docket entry for this order.

13

DATED THIS 7th day of August 2013.

14
15

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5