White v. Vaughn et al

Filing 25

ORDER TO REOPEN Granted 23 MOTION for Extension of Time in Which to File His Objections to the Order of Dismissal or an Extention of Time to That Plaintiff's Objections Will be Considered Timely, 24 MOTION for Reconsideration of 22 Order of Dismissal. Case reopened on 1/18/18(Signed by Judge George C Hanks, Jr) Parties notified.(ltrevino, 3)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
GALVESTON DIVISION
WILLIAM DEXTER WHITE,
Plaintiff,
VS.
CEILAI RNC OKEYE, et al,
Defendants.

January 18, 2018
David J. Bradley, Clerk

§
§
§
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-CV-333
§
§
§
§
ORDER TO REOPEN

This prisoner civil rights case is an offshoot of a decade-long case from the Tyler
Division of the Eastern District of Texas. The plaintiff, William Dexter White, filed a
complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the Eastern District; and Judge Mitchell severed
claims against a host of defendants and transferred them here (Dkt. 1). White’s filings in
this Court have generally been very difficult to comprehend, and the Court dismissed this
case without prejudice after White failed to provide a short, plain statement of his claims
in response to Judge Hoyt’s order to clarify his pleadings. White has filed a motion
asking the Court to reconsider the dismissal. The Court will reopen the case but will split
it into two cases and require White to pay two filing fees.
The Court has reviewed White’s motion for reconsideration and has looked for a
second time at the voluminous case files from the Eastern District (as well as the
available files from White’s three appeals to the Fifth Circuit stemming from the Eastern
District litigation). It is now clear that one reason the Court has had trouble understanding
White’s pleadings is that White has included what should be multiple lawsuits in one

1/4

complaint. In his motion for reconsideration, White provides descriptions of three events:
(1) an assault by “numerous black officers[;]” (2) another assault, this one by an AfricanAmerican inmate; and (3) inadequate medical treatment for “his crush [sic] left cheek”
(Dkt. 24 at pp. 2–3). The Court has been able to link these descriptions to Judge
Mitchell’s discussions of: (1) an alleged assault by three correctional officers (these are
the defendants named Nix, Mayes, and Cooper) on April 29, 2003; (2) a claim that the
Darrington Unit classification committee (which included the defendants named Dodson,
O’Guinn, Ballie, Horn, Weston, and Velasquez) refused to place White on safekeeping
status after his transfer from the Michael Unit, which facilitated an assault by an AfricanAmerican inmate in September 2004; and (3) a claim that White was denied adequate
medical care (by defendants Okeye, Murray, Smock, and John Doe doctor) for injuries
sustained during the September 2004 assault. See Eastern District of Texas Case Number
6:05-CV-26 at Dkt. 248 p. 2.
The two assaults are unrelated to each other. Moreover, the alleged denial of
medical care, while tangentially related to the September 2004 assault, states a different
claim against a different set of defendants. In other words, this lawsuit is actually at least
two lawsuits, if not three. An attempt to file multiple lawsuits in one complaint violates
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 18 and 20, which set out the limits on joinder of claims
and parties. The Fifth Circuit has discouraged the “creative joinder of actions” by
prisoners attempting to circumvent the fee-payment and three-strikes provisions of the
Prison Litigation Reform Act. See Patton v. Jefferson Correctional Center, 136 F.3d 458,
464 (5th Cir. 1998); see also, e.g., Covarrubias v. Foxworth, No. 6:13-CV-812, 2017 WL
2/4

1159767 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 29, 2017) (severing prisoner lawsuit consisting of unrelated
claims into three separate cases); Nelson v. Francis, No. 2:02-CV-347, 2003 WL
21766528 (N.D. Tex. July 29, 2003) (severing prisoner lawsuit consisting of unrelated
claims into seven separate cases). The Court will reopen the lawsuit, but it will not allow
White to pursue all of these claims without paying all of the required fees.
Based on the foregoing, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1.

2.

This case is SEVERED into two separate lawsuits. The first lawsuit, which
will carry this case number, will consist of the excessive-force claims
against Defendants Howard Nix, Keith Mayes, and Shelton Cooper. The
second lawsuit will carry a case number assigned by the District Clerk and
will consist of: (1) the failure-to-protect claims against Defendants V.
Dodson, J. O’Guinn, Susan Ballie, B. Horn, Herman Weston, and A.
Velasquez; and (2) the failure-to-treat claims against Defendants Ceilai
Okeye, Owen Murray, Steven Smock, and John Doe doctor. To the extent
that White’s pleadings attempt to state other claims, those claims are not
reopened.

3.

3/4

White’s motion for leave to file an untimely motion to reopen (Dkt. 23) and
motion to reopen (Dkt. 24) are GRANTED to the extent described in this
order.

Within 30 days of the date of this order, White must either pay the full
filing fee or apply for leave to proceed in forma pauperis IN EACH
LAWSUIT. Failure to do so in either lawsuit will result in the dismissal of
that lawsuit. If applying for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, White must
include a certified copy of his inmate trust fund account history containing
the deposits and monthly balances for the six-month period immediately
preceding the entry of this order to reopen. If White only wishes to pursue
one of the lawsuits, he must include with the in forma pauperis application
a brief statement clarifying to which lawsuit the application pertains.

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this order to the parties. The Clerk will
also provide to the plaintiff two copies of the standard application for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis.
SIGNED at Galveston, Texas, this 18th day of January, 2018.
___________________________________
George C. Hanks Jr.
United States District Judge

4/4