Carawan v. Mitchell et al
Filing
7
ORDER allowing plaintiff 30 days to amend in accordance with this order re 1 Complaint. If plaintiff fails to amend the complaint within the time set by the Court, this action will be dismissed without prejudice and without further notice. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 3/17/16. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(clc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:16-cv-43-FDW
WILLIAM CARAVAN, JR.,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
)
)
FNU MITCHELL, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on initial review of Plaintiff’s Complaint, filed
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, (Doc. No. 1). See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2); 1915A. On January 28,
2016, the Court entered an order waiving the initial filing fee and directing monthly payments to
be made from Plaintiff’s prison account. (Doc. No. 5). Thus, Plaintiff is proceeding in forma
pauperis.
I.
BACKGROUND
Pro se Plaintiff William Caravan, Jr., a North Carolina state inmate currently incarcerated
at Lanesboro Correctional Institution in Polkton, North Carolina, filed this action on January 25,
2016, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In the Complaint, Plaintiff brings various, unrelated claims
against twenty-one named Defendants, based on events that have occurred during his
incarceration at Lanesboro. For instance, Plaintiff purports to bring an Eighth Amendment claim
based on deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against various defendants; a First
Amendment and Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act claim against other
defendants, and an Eighth Amendment claim based on conditions of confinement against other
1
defendants.
II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court must review the Complaint
to determine whether it is subject to dismissal on the grounds that it is “frivolous or malicious
[or] fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Furthermore,
§ 1915A requires an initial review of a “complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks
redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity,” and the
court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint,
if the complaint is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted; or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. In its
frivolity review, this Court must determine whether the Complaint raises an indisputably
meritless legal theory or is founded upon clearly baseless factual contentions, such as fantastic or
delusional scenarios. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989).
III.
DISCUSSION
Under Rule 18(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a plaintiff may bring multiple
claims, related or not, in a lawsuit against a single defendant. See FED. R. CIV. P. 18(a).
However, to name other defendants in the same lawsuit, the plaintiff must satisfy Rule 20(a)(2),
which permits joinder of multiple defendants only where the right to relief asserted against them
arises out of the same transaction or occurrence and concerns a common question of law or fact.
See FED. R. CIV. P. 20(a)(2). Here, Plaintiff’s complaint brings multiple, unrelated claims
against numerous defendants. Thus, Plaintiff's allegations fail to comply with the rules
governing the joinder of multiple claims and defendants in the same lawsuit. See George v.
Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (noting that “[u]nrelated claims against different
2
defendants belong in different suits,” so as to prevent prisoners from dodging the fee payment or
three-strikes provisions in the Prison Litigation Reform Act). For instance, Plaintiff’s First
Amendment religious exercise claim against various Defendants is wholly unrelated to his
Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against other named Defendants. The Court
will allow Plaintiff the opportunity to amend the Complaint to comply with Rules 18 and 20.
That is, in an amended Complaint, Plaintiff may choose which distinct claims he wishes to
pursue in this action. As to wholly unrelated claims against different Defendants, he must bring
those claims through separately filed lawsuits.
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiff shall have thirty (30) days in which to amend his
complaint in accordance with this order.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff shall have thirty (30) days in which to amend the complaint in accordance
with this order. If Plaintiff fails to amend the complaint within the time limit set by
the Court, this action will be dismissed without prejudice and without further notice
to Plaintiff. Furthermore, to the extent that an amended complaint purports to bring
claims against multiple defendants that are wholly unrelated, the amended complaint
will be subject to dismissal without further notice to Plaintiff for the reasons
explained in this order.
2. The Clerk is directed to mail Plaintiff a new Section 1983 complaint form.
3
4
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?