Williams v. Gilbert et al

Filing 50

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 47 Motion for Reconsideration. This case shall be reopened to the active docket of the court. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter a new docket entry in this case, titled as the Second Amended Complaint, which will c onsist only of pages 1 through 37 of Docket No. 47 -1. The Clerk shall also update the list of defendants in the case, to ensure that only those defendants listed on page 3 of the Second Amended Complaint are defendants in this action. All other def endants shall be terminate as parties. The remainder of Docket No. 47 -1 will be docketed in nine separate actions, each corresponding to a different complaint numbered by Williams. Specifically the Clerk shall open nine new cases.. Signed by Judge Elizabeth K. Dillon on 11/21/2022. (Opinion and Order mailed to Pro Se Party via US Mail)(aab)

Case 7:21-cv-00222-EKD-JCH Document 50 Filed 11/21/22 Page 1 of 6 Pageid#: 669

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ROANOKE DIVISION
ALUCIOUS WILLIAMS, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
CPT. GILBERT, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 7:21cv00222
By: Elizabeth K. Dillon
United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Alucious Williams, Jr., a Virginia prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and he subsequently filed several documents with
additional claims, an amended complaint, and motions to amend. By order entered February 3,
2022, the court ordered him to file a second amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 27.) That order
explained that, in addition to satisfying other requirements, Williams’s proposed complaint
“must conform to the joinder rules,” which were cited in a footnote. (Id. at 2 n.1.) The order
further stated that if Williams failed to comply with the directions set forth in the order, the court
would not accept the second amended complaint for filing.
When the Clerk failed to receive a timely submission from Williams, the case was
dismissed. The court later granted a motion to reopen and granted Williams several extensions
of time to comply. Williams again failed to file anything by the extended deadline of June 29,
2022. The court thus issued a July 8, 2022 show cause order, which directed him to respond
within 21 days if he wanted to proceed with his amended complaint as the operative complaint.
(Dkt. No. 42.) That order warned that, if he failed to file a timely response, his case might be
dismissed. (Id.) After not receiving a response from Williams, the court again dismissed the
case without prejudice on August 8, 2022, based on his failure to prosecute. (Dkt. No. 43.)
Thereafter, both the show cause order and the court’s dismissal order were returned as

Case 7:21-cv-00222-EKD-JCH Document 50 Filed 11/21/22 Page 2 of 6 Pageid#: 670

undeliverable, and on September 28, 2022, the Clerk received from Williams a notice of change
of address, along with a motion he has titled a “Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment”
(docketed as a motion for reconsideration) (Dkt. No. 47), and a proposed second amended
complaint (Dkt. No. 47-1).
In his motion for reconsideration, Williams includes a long list of complaints about his
treatment, interference with his property, and other allegedly retaliatory acts against him by
prison officials. He also alleges that that defendants purposefully interfered with his ability to
file his second amended complaint. It is unnecessary for the court to address any of these
allegations in order to rule on his motion. As is relevant here, his motion to reconsider explains
that he was in transit for much of June, July, and August 2022, that he did not have his property
for much of that time, and that he was not permitted to make copies of legal documents or mail
anything for some of that time. He also asserts that, for at least some of that time, he was on a
suicide watch and in special housing, and was not allowed any property whatsoever, including
any legal papers.
Williams has shown a certain disregard for the court’s deadlines throughout this
litigation, but he also has provided reasons to account for at least some of his delays. For the
several months in which he failed to file his second amended complaint and failed to respond to
the court’s orders, he was in transit and/or lacked access to his property, the mail, and/or legal
copies. Given those facts, and especially in light of the preference for resolving cases on their
merits, see Colleton Preparatory Acad., Inc. v. Hoover Universal, Inc., 616 F.3d 413, 417 (4th
Cir. 2010), the court will grant Williams’s motion for reconsideration, will reopen the case, and
will deem his second amended complaint timely filed.
Turning to a review of the second amended complaint, the court notes that it consists of
more than 200 pages of handwritten allegations. Upon a careful review, moreover, it appears to
2

Case 7:21-cv-00222-EKD-JCH Document 50 Filed 11/21/22 Page 3 of 6 Pageid#: 671

actually be ten separate complaints. Each one is labeled separately by number (“Complaint 1,”
“Complaint 2,” etc.), names different defendants, and references different allegations or events. 1
Thus, it appears to the court that Williams, in attempting to comply with the court’s rules
concerning joinder, filed ten separate complaints. So construed, the first should have been
docketed as a second amended complaint in this case, and what he has titled Complaints 2
through 9 should have been docketed in separate, new cases. The court will thus direct that the
document be docketed in that fashion.
Even if Williams had not intended to file ten separate complaints, the court will sever the
second amended complaint into ten separate actions because the document contains unrelated
claims against different defendants, in violation of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 18 and 20.
Allowing all of them to proceed in a single suit would make that lawsuit unwieldy and
inefficient. It also would effectively allow Williams to challenge various discrete events
involving different defendants and different aspects of his incarceration in a single omnibus suit,
in violation of the purposes of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”).
Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a court the discretion to “sever
any claim against a party” and proceed with it separately. Fed. R. Civ. P. 21; Spencer, White &
Prentis, Inc. of Conn. v. Pfizer, Inc., 498 F.2d 358, 362 (2d Cir. 1974) (“[J]ustification for
severance is not confined to misjoinder of parties.”). Use of Rule 21 has been approved by
circuit courts in the context of initial review of prisoner complaints, with and without misjoinder.
See Daker v. Head, 730 F. App’x 765, 768 (11th Cir. 2018) (explaining that district court should
have severed unrelated claims under Rule 21 and sua sponte dismissed improper defendants
rather than dismissing prisoner’s amended complaint); Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 952 (7th

The court has not carefully analyzed all the allegations in all the cases. There may be some overlap
between cases, as well.
1

3

Case 7:21-cv-00222-EKD-JCH Document 50 Filed 11/21/22 Page 4 of 6 Pageid#: 672

Cir. 2011) (holding that district court should have severed case into separate actions or dismissed
improperly joined defendants).
Accordingly, the court will exercise its discretion to sever Williams’s claims into separate
lawsuits, in order to promote judicial efficiency and ensure that the claims can be addressed in an
orderly fashion. Along with a copy of this memorandum opinion and order, different portions of
the proposed second amended complaint (Dkt. No. 47-1) shall be filed as the opening document
in each of those lawsuits. Each of the nine new lawsuits will be conditionally filed, and
Williams must separately consent to paying the filing fee in each lawsuit, in order for it to go
forward.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
In accordance with this Opinion, it is ORDERED as follows:
1. The motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 47) is GRANTED. This case shall be
reopened to the active docket of the court.
2. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter a new docket entry in this case, titled as the Second
Amended Complaint, which will consist only of pages 1 through 37 of Docket No.
47-1. The Clerk shall also update the list of defendants in the case, to ensure that
only those defendants listed on page 3 of the Second Amended Complaint are
defendants in this action. 2 All other defendants should be terminated as parties. In a
separate opinion and order to be issued in due time, the court will review Williams’s
37-page second amended complaint to determine whether it complies with the court’s

The fourteen defendants to this action will be Cpt. Gilbert, Unit Manager Eric Miller, Unit Manager Amy
Duncan, Unit Manager Gibson, Counselor D. Young, Lt. G. Adams, Unit Manager Day, Counselor Mullins,
Correctional Officer Jones, Sgt. Clem, Sgt. Ridings, Lt. Flemming, Correctional Officer Gilbert, and Hearings
Officer Counts.
2

4

Case 7:21-cv-00222-EKD-JCH Document 50 Filed 11/21/22 Page 5 of 6 Pageid#: 673

prior orders and also pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, in order to determine whether
the case should be summarily dismissed or instead be served on the defendants.
3. The remainder of Docket No. 47-1 will be docketed in nine separate actions, each
corresponding to a different complaint numbered by Williams. Specifically, the
Clerk shall open nine new cases, corresponding to the page numbers listed below of
Docket No. 47-1.
A. In each new case, only the listed pages shall be included and conditionally filed as
the complaint in each case, and only the defendants listed on the first page of each
complaint shall be included as defendants. The complaint in each case shall
consist of the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

Complaint 2, Dkt. No. 47-1, at 38–47;
Complaint 3, Dkt. No. 47-1, at 48–142;
Complaint 4, Dkt. No. 47-1, at 143–152;
Complaint 5, Dkt. No. 47-1, at 153–162;
Complaint 6, Dkt. No. 47-1, at 163–179;
Complaint 7, Dkt. No. 47-1, at 180–190;
Complaint 8, Dkt. No. 47-1, at 191–205;
Complaint 9, Dkt. No. 47-1, at 206–218; and
Complaint 10, Dkt. No. 47-1, at 219–226.

B. In each of the nine new civil actions, the Clerk also shall file a copy of this
Memorandum Opinion and Order as an attachment to the amended complaint.
C. In each of the nine new civil actions, the complaint shall be conditionally filed. In
each new case, the Clerk shall docket Docket No. 7 from this case (Williams’s
statement of assets and prisoner trust account report), and shall send a consent-tofee form with the same partial initial filing fee amount as in this case (see Dkt.
No. 8). Williams shall be required to return the consent-to-fee form by the
deadline set forth in each case to continue to pursue the claim(s) presented in that

5

Case 7:21-cv-00222-EKD-JCH Document 50 Filed 11/21/22 Page 6 of 6 Pageid#: 674

action. Alternatively, he may notify the court that he wishes to voluntarily
dismiss any particular action.
D. Williams should carefully consider which cases and claims to pursue. If he elects
to proceed with a case, and the claims in it are later dismissed as frivolous or for
failure to state a claim, that dismissal will likely count as a “strike” for purposes
of the PLRA’s three-strikes provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Lomax v. OrtizMarquez, 140 S. Ct. 1721, 1727 (2020) (holding that a dismissal of a suit for
failure to state a claim, whether with or without prejudice, counts as a strike under
the PLRA).
The Clerk is DIRECTED to provide a copy of this memorandum opinion and order to
Williams.
Entered: November 21, 2022.

/s/ Elizabeth K. Dillon
Elizabeth K. Dillon
United States District Judge

6