Pavalone v. County of Lackawanna Pennsylvania et al

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: pltf's complaint 1 - It is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Clrk of Ct to fwd civil rts form complaint to pltf.; 2. Pltf to file amended complaint via said form by 11/2/11...; 3. Amended complaint to contain same case number al ready assigned to this action...; 4. Pltf cautioned that inc of separate, unrelated claims will be considered failure to comply... & will result in dismissal of complaint.; 5. Failure to file amended complaint w/in spec time period will be construed as loss of interest in litigation & result in dismissal of action. (See memo & order for complete details.) Signed by Honorable Christopher C. Conner on 10/18/11. (ki)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

PAUL JOSEPH PAVALONE ,
Plaintiff
v.
COUNTY OF LACKAWANNA
PENNSYLVANIA, et al.,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:11-CV-1449
(Judge Conner)

MEMORANDUM
Paul Joseph Pavalone (“plaintiff ”), an inmate incarcerated at the
Lackawanna County Prison, Scranton, Pennsylvania, commenced this action on
August 5, 2011, naming the following defendants: County of Lackawanna
Pennsylvania; Lackawanna County Domestic Relations; Lackawanna County
Public Defender’s Office; Lackawanna County District Attorney’s Office;
Lackawanna County Prison; Federal Bureau of Investigation; Attorney Petorak;
Attorney Mastri, Detective Justin Leri; Detective Chris Kolcharno; Mary Muscari;
Thomas Baker; Tim Cannon; and Carbondale Police Department. (Doc. 1.)
Plaintiff moves to proceed in forma pauperis. (Docs. 2, 5.) Preliminary review of
the complaint reveals that plaintiff includes a whole host of unrelated claims
against various entities and individuals. “Pleadings must be construed so as to do
justice.” FED .R.CIV .P. 8(e). Allowing the pleading to proceed as filed is not in the
interest of judicial economy. Consequently, plaintiff will be directed to file an
amended pleading which strictly adheres to the mandates of Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, Rule 8, General Rules of Pleading, and Rule 20, Permissive Joinder of
Parties.
Rule 8(d)(1) states, in pertinent part, that “[e]ach allegation must be simple,
concise and direct.” Rule 20, states, in pertinent part, the following:
(a) Persons Who May Join or Be Joined
(2) Defendants. Persons – . . . may be joined in one action as
defendants if:
(A) any right to relief is asserted against them jointly,
severally, or in the alternative, with respect to or arising out
of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of
transactions or occurrences; and
(B) any question of law or fact common to all defendants
will arise in the action.
FED . R. CIV . P. 20(a). Although Rule 20 is a flexible rule that allows fairness and
judicial economy, the rule only permits “joinder in a single action of all persons
asserting, or defending against, a joint, several, or alternative right to relief that
arises out of the same transaction or occurrence and presents a common question
of law or fact.” 7 Charles Allen Wright, Arthur Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal
Practice and Procedure §1652 at 371-72 (1986). “Permissive joinder is not, however,
applicable in all cases. The rule imposes two specific requisites to the joinder of
parties: (1) a right to relief must be asserted by, or against, each plaintiff or
defendant relating to or arising out of the same transaction or occurrence, or series
of transactions or occurrences; and (2) some question of law or fact common to all

2

the parties must arise in the action.” Mosley v. General Motors Corp., 497 F.2d
1330, 1333 (8th Cir. 1974).
As noted supra, plaintiff raises a host of unrelated claims. The claims
include, but are not limited to, conspiracy, unlawful arrest, poor conditions of
confinement, false criminal charges and a coerced guilty plea. (Doc. 1). These
claims did not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence or series of
transactions or occurrences. Moreover, plaintiff’s various claims do not involve an
issue of law or fact common to all defendants.
While plaintiff will be granted an opportunity to file an amended complaint,
he is strictly cautioned that the amended complaint must comply with Rule 20 and
involve only related claims or parties. “It must be a new pleading which stands by
itself as an adequate complaint without reference to the complaint already filed.”
Young v. Keohane, 809 F. Supp. 1185 (M.D.Pa. 1992). Further, plaintiff will be
required to utilize the court’s form complaint.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”), which substantially
changed the judicial treatment of civil rights actions by state and federal prisoners,
also compels compliance with Rule 20. Specifically, under the PLRA the full filing
fee must ultimately be paid in a non-habeas action. Allowing a prisoner to include a
plethora of separate, independent claims, would circumvent the filing fee
requirements of the PLRA. Thus, to the extent that plaintiff believes that he has
been subjected to more than one violation of his rights, and to the extent that these

3

violations are unrelated to each other, plaintiff should file separate complaints
addressing each violation.
An appropriate Order accompanies this Memorandum.

S/ Christopher C. Conner
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
United States District Judge

Dated:

October 18, 2011

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

PAUL JOSEPH PAVALONE ,
Plaintiff
v.
COUNTY OF LACKAWANNA
PENNSYLVANIA, et al.,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:11-CV-1449
(Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 18th day of October, 2011, upon consideration of plaintiff’s
complaint (Doc. 1), it is hereby ORDERED that:
1.

The Clerk of Court is directed to forward to plaintiff a civil rights form
complaint.

2.

Plaintiff shall file an Amended Complaint, utilizing the enclosed civil
rights form, on or before November 2, 2011. No attachments to the
form will be accepted by the Court.

3.

The Amended Complaint shall contain the same case number that is
already assigned to this action, Civil No. 1:11-CV-1449, and shall be
direct, concise, and shall stand alone without reference to any other
document filed in this matter. See FED . R. CIV . P. 8(d).

4.

Plaintiff is strictly cautioned that the inclusion of separate, unrelated
claims will be considered a failure to comply with an order of Court
and will result in dismissal of the complaint. See FED . R. CIV . P. 20.

5.

Failure to file an amended complaint within the specified time period
will be construed as a loss of interest in the litigation and will result in
dismissal of the action.

S/ Christopher C. Conner
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
United States District Judge