Sandoval v. Hartsack et al

Filing 27

ORDER granting 24 Motion to Sever and 25 Motion to Amend/Correct, and denying 26 Motion to Vacate Referral by Chief Magistrate Judge Carmen E. Garza. (ag)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
SHANE SANDOVAL,
Plaintiff,
v.

No. CV 18-30 MV/CG

MDC, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Shane Sandoval’s Motion for
Severance of Parties and Claims in Plaintiff’s Civil Complaint (the “Motion to Sever”),
(Doc. 24), filed March 7, 2019; Motion to Amend Original Complaint (the “Motion to
Amend”), (Doc. 25), filed March 7, 2019; and Motion to Vacate Referral of Magistrate
Judge and Brief in Support (the “Motion to Vacate Referral”), (Doc. 26), filed September
5, 2019. Having reviewed the Motions and the relevant law, the Court will GRANT
Plaintiff Shane Sandoval’s Motion for Severance of Parties and Claims in Plaintiff’s Civil
Complaint, (Doc. 24), and Motion to Amend Original Complaint, (Doc. 25), and DENY
Motion to Vacate Referral of Magistrate Judge and Brief in Support, (Doc. 26).
I.

Motion to Sever Claims and Motion to Amend Original Complaint

Plaintiff Sandoval filed his Motion to Sever Claims on March 7, 2019. (Doc. 24).
In his Motion to Sever, Plaintiff seeks to sever his claims against Defendant Kyle
Hartsock and BCSO from the claims against all other Defendants in this case on the
grounds that his claims against the BCSO Defendants arise out of different facts than
the claims against MDC and other Defendants joined in the case. Id. Plaintiff also filed
his Motion to Amend. In his Motion to Amend, Plaintiff seeks to assert amended claims

against Defendant Hartsock and add additional BCSO officers. (Doc. 25 at 1-4). Plaintiff
attaches a proposed Complaint setting out his claims against BCSO and the BCSO
officers. (Doc. 25 at 5-14).
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 21, the Court may, at any time, sever any claim against a
party. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 permits a district court to join additional
defendants when the right to relief arises out of the same transaction, occurrence, or
series of transactions or occurrences. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2)(A). Federal Rules 20 and
21 govern joinder and misjoinder of parties and claims.” Nasious v. City & Cnty. of
Denver, 415 F. App'x 877, 880 (10th Cir. 2011). Pursuant to Rule 20(a)(2), defendants
may be joined in one action if two requirements are met: 1) the plaintiff's right to relief
arises out of the same transaction or occurrence; and 2) the plaintiff's claims raise
common questions of law or fact.
Misjoinder under Rule 21 occurs when there is no common question of law or
fact or when the events that give rise to the plaintiff’s claims against defendants do not
stem from the same transaction. Nasious, 415 F. App'x at 880 (citing DirecTV, Inc. v.
Leto, 467 F.3d 842, 844 (3d Cir. 2006)). To remedy misjoinder, any claims against
misjoined parties may be severed and proceeded with separately. Id. at 880–81. The
Court has broad discretion to sever parties or claims. German by German v. Fed. Home
Loan Mortgage Corp., 896 F.Supp. 1385, 1400 (S.D.N.Y. 1995).
The Court find that the claims Plaintiff seeks to assert against BCSO and the
additional BCSO officers in his proposed Complaint arise out of the same transaction or
occurrence and raise common questions of law and fact as the claims asserted in the
original Complaint against Defendant Hartsack and BCSO. (Doc. 1 at 1); (Doc. 25 at 5-

2

14). The Court therefore finds that it is in the interests of justice and efficiency under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 to grant Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Original
Complaint.
The Court also finds that Plaintiff’s claims against the BCSO Defendants do not
arise out of the same transaction as the claims against the MDC and other state
Defendants, and that the claims against the BSCO Defendants, including Defendant
Hartsack, should be severed and proceed separately. Nasious, 415 F. App'x at 880-81.
The Court will direct the Clerk to open a new prisoner civil rights case and file Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint, (Doc. 25 at 5-14), as the opening pleading in the new proceeding.
All other claims asserted in the original Complaint, (Doc. 1), will proceed forward in this
case.
II.

Motion to Vacate Referral of Magistrate Judge

Next, Plaintiff asks the Court to vacate its reference of this civil case to a
magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(4). (Doc. 26). Plaintiff argues that he was not
given the opportunity to consent to referral of the case to a magistrate judge as required
by 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). Plaintiff misunderstands the nature of the Order of Reference
entered in this case. The Order of Reference was entered under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1),
which permits the district judge to designate a magistrate judge to hear and determine
pretrial matters, conduct hearings, and make proposed findings. Unlike a Section
636(c)(1) reference, Section 636(b)(1) does not authorize a magistrate judge to conduct
any trial and does not require consent of the plaintiff. Section 636(c)(4) has no
application to the Order of Reference in this case, and the Court will therefore deny
Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Referral under § 636(c)(4).

3

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff Shane Sandoval’s Motion for Severance of Parties and Claims in
Plaintiff’s Civil Complaint, (Doc. 24) is GRANTED;
2. Plaintiff Sandoval’s Motion to Amend Original Complaint, (Doc. 25), is
GRANTED;
3. All claims against BCSO, Defendant Kyle Hartsack, and all other BCSO
officers are severed and will proceed in a separate action;
4. The Clerk is DIRECTED to open a new prisoner civil rights proceeding and to
file Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, (Doc. 25 at 5-14), as the opening pleading in the new
case;
5. All claims asserted against all other Defendants in the original Complaint,
(Doc. 1), will proceed forward in this case; and
6. Plaintiff Sandoval’s Motion to Vacate Referral of Magistrate Judge and Brief in
Support, (Doc. 26), is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

_________________________________
THE HONORABLE CARMEN E. GARZA
CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4