Murdock v. McClelland et al
Filing
11
ORDER directing that Plaintiff shall have thirty (30) days in which to amend the Complaint in accordance with this order.. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 9/29/17. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(clc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:17-cv-274-FDW
AJANAKU MURDOCK,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
)
)
JACK MCCLELLAND, 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. Plaintiff is
proceeding in forma pauperis. (Doc. No. 6).
I.
BACKGROUND
Pro se Plaintiff Ajanaku Murdock, a North Carolina state inmate currently incarcerated at
Lanesboro Correctional Institution in Polkton, North Carolina, filed this action on May 23, 2017,
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In the Complaint, Plaintiff brings various, unrelated claims
against fourteen Defendants, based on events occurring at Lanesboro.
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
1
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, including Eighth Amendment claims for deliberate indifference to
serious medical needs, Fourteenth Amendment due process claims arising out of disciplinary
hearings, and First Amendment claims related to mail tampering and denial of Plaintiff’s right to
access to the courts. 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 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 Eighth Amendment
deliberate indifference claim as to various Defendants is wholly unrelated to his First
Amendment claim against other Defendants regarding tampering with Plaintiff’s mail and
2
obstructing his right to access to the courts.
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. For instance, Plaintiff’s deliberate
indifference claim must be brought in a separate lawsuit from his wholly unrelated claim of a
violation of his First Amendment right to access to the courts.
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.
Signed: September 29, 2017
3
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?