Sexton v. County of Clark Nevada (COCN) et al

Filing 1

ORDER. Directing clerk to docket 31 Order from case 16-cv-734 severed case as to Plaintiff Amanda Lea Sexton. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 9/29/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DL)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9
10

AMANDA LEA SEXTON and TONEY
ANTHONEY WHITE,

ORDER
Plaintiffs,

11
v.

12
13

COUNTY OF CLARK NEVADA et al.,
Defendants.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case No. 2:16-cv-00734-RFB-VCF

Pro se plaintiffs Amanda Lea Sexton and Toney Anthoney White, who are pretrial
detainees in the custody of the Clark County Detention Center (“CCDC”), have jointly
submitted a second amended civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (ECF
No. 13) and have submitted two motions to permit correspondence between plaintiffs
(ECF No. 8, 17), a motion for sua sponte review of the amended complaint (ECF No.
10), two applications to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 12, 16), a motion for
reconsideration (ECF No. 14), a motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 18), three
motions to seal (ECF No. 19, 20, 22), an amended motion for sua sponte review of
second amended complaint (ECF No. 25), and a motion to strike applications to
proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 28). Plaintiff White has paid the full filing fee for
this action. (ECF No. 27).
I.

SEVERANCE OF CASES
Plaintiffs White and Sexton have filed a joint pro se second amended civil rights

complaint. (ECF No. 13). Generally, persons may join in one action as plaintiffs if they

1

assert “any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising

2

out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences” and

3

“any question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs will arise in the action.” Fed. R. Civ.

4

P. 20(a)(1)(A)-(B). Despite this, “the court may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a

5

party . . . [and] may also sever any claim against a party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 21.

6

The Court finds that, even if the plaintiffs in this action are properly joined, the

7

Court has found that management of pro se multi-plaintiff inmate litigation presents

8

significant burdens to both the parties and the Court. Although pro se litigants have the

9

right to plead and conduct their own cases personally, they have no authority to

10

represent anyone other than themselves. See 28 U.S.C. § 1654; Cato v. United States,

11

70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.1 (9th Cir. 1995); C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818

12

F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987). Thus, during the pendency of this case, each individual

13

Plaintiff would be required to sign and submit any individual motions or notices related

14

to their own individual claims in the action. Additionally, each Plaintiff would be required

15

to individually sign any joint motions or notices filed on behalf of both Plaintiffs. Based

16

on the motions to permit joint correspondence between the two inmates, it appears that

17

Plaintiffs will have limited opportunities to discuss case strategy, share discovery, or

18

even provide each other with copies of the motions and notices that they file with the

19

Court because the CCDC prohibits inmate-to-inmate mail communications absent

20

exceptions that Plaintiffs do not qualify for.

21

convicted, Plaintiffs will most likely be incarcerated at different facilities and would have

22

a difficult time proceeding jointly. Accordingly, the Court severs the cases in light of

23

judicial economy and maintaining efficient control over the Court’s docket.

24

II.

(See ECF No. 8 at 2).

Moreover, if

IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATIONS

25

Each Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 12,

26

16). On September 2, 2016, Plaintiff White paid the full $400 filing fee for this action.

27

(ECF No. 27). Plaintiffs then filed a motion to strike the applications to proceed in forma

28

pauperis because they had paid the full filing fee for this action. (ECF No. 28).

-2-

1

In light of the Court’s decision to sever this case, the Court denies Plaintiff

2

White’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 12) as moot, denies the

3

motion to strike the applications to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 28) as moot,

4

denies the motion for reconsideration about the applications to proceed in forma

5

pauperis (ECF No. 14) as moot, and denies the motion for an extension of time to file

6

applications to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 18) as moot.

7

The Clerk of the Court shall deny Plaintiff Sexton’s application to proceed in

8

forma pauperis (ECF No. 16) as moot in this case, but shall docket it as a pending,

9

active motion in the newly severed case.

10

III.

MISCELLANEOUS MOTIONS

11

Plaintiffs have filed two motions to permit correspondence for legal purposes

12

between themselves while incarcerated at the CCDC. (ECF No. 8, 17). According to

13

Plaintiffs, the CCDC prohibits inmate-to-inmate mail communications absent exceptions

14

that Plaintiffs do not qualify for. (ECF No. 8 at 2). The Court denies these motions

15

because each Plaintiff must proceed on his or her case individually.

16

Plaintiff White has filed three motions to seal documents. (ECF No. 19, 20, 22).

17

Plaintiff White seeks to seal “sensitive documents” related to his case and notes that

18

Defendants have the originals. (ECF No. 19 at 1; ECF No. 20 at 1; ECF No. 22 at 1).

19

Plaintiff wants to file these documents with the Court in order to prevent loss,

20

destruction, damage, or seizure by Defendants. (Id.) The documents are various kites

21

filed by Plaintiff to Defendants. (ECF No. 19-1, 20-1, 22-1). The Court denies the

22

motions to seal because Plaintiff has neither established a compelling reason or good

23

cause for sealing these documents. See Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809

24

F.3d 1092, 1096-99 (9th Cir. 2016).

25

IV.

SCREENING OF SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

26

The Court denies as moot Plaintiffs’ motion for the Court to review the first

27

amended complaint because the operative complaint is the second amended complaint.

28

(ECF No. 10). The Court denies as moot Plaintiffs’ motion for the Court to review the

-3-

1

second amended complaint because the Court will screen the second amended

2

complaint in a separate order. (ECF No. 25). The Court shall issue a screening order

3

on the second amended complaint in the instant case and severed case.

4

V.

For the foregoing reasons, it is ordered that the motion to strike the applications

5
6

to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 28) is denied as moot.
It is further ordered that Plaintiff White’s application to proceed in forma pauperis

7
8

(ECF No. 12) is denied as moot.
It is further ordered that the motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 14) is denied as

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

CONCLUSION

moot.
It is further ordered that the motion for extension of time (ECF No. 18) is denied
as moot.
It is further ordered that the motions to have the Court review the first and second
amended complaints (ECF No. 10, 25) are denied as moot.
It is further ordered that the motions to permit correspondence (ECF No. 8, 17)
are denied.
It is further ordered that the motions to seal documents (ECF No. 19, 20, 22) are
denied.
It is further ordered that the claims of Plaintiffs Amanda Lea Sexton and Toney
Anthoney White are severed from each other.
It is further ordered that Plaintiff Toney Anthoney White shall proceed as the sole
plaintiff in the instant case, 2:16-cv-00734-RFB-VCF.

23

It is further ordered that the Clerk of the Court is directed to:

24

1.

Open a separate civil action for Plaintiff Amanda Lea Sexton;

25

2.

Assign Plaintiff Sexton’s action to the district judge and magistrate judge

26

to whom the instant case is assigned and make appropriate adjustments in the

27

assignment of civil cases for such assignment;

28

3.

File and docket a copy of this order in Plaintiff Sexton’s new case;

-4-

1

4.

File and docket Plaintiff Sexton’s application to proceed in forma pauperis

2

(ECF No. 16) in her new case and designate the application as an active, pending

3

motion;

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

5.

Deny as moot Plaintiff Sexton’s application to proceed in forma pauperis

(ECF No. 16) in the instant case.
6.

Place a copy of the second amended complaint (ECF No. 13), submitted

on June 7, 2016, in Plaintiff Sexton’s newly severed case; and
7.

Send Plaintiff Sexton an inmate advisory letter bearing her new case

name and case number.
It is further ordered that the Court will issue separate screening orders on the
second amended complaint in the instant case and in Plaintiff Sexton’s severed case.

12
13

DATED THIS 29th day of September 2016.

14
15

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

-5-