(PC) Arrant v. Santoro ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 MELVIN R. ARRANT, Case No. 1:20-cv-01253-ADA-SAB (PC) 11 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 12 v. FOR SEVERANCE OF CLAIMS 13 KELLY SANTORO, et al., (ECF No. 69) 14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff Melvin R. Arrant is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 17 action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 18 Currently before the Court is Defendants’ motion for severance, filed April 17, 2023. 19 (ECF No. 69.) 20 I. 21 PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 22 This action is currently proceeding against Defendants Dodson and Garcia for retaliation, 23 against Defendant Florez for excessive force, and against Defendant Tapia for excessive force 24 and retaliation. 25 Defendants filed an answer to the complaint on July 1, 2021. (ECF No. 30.) After an 26 unsuccessful settlement conference, the Court issued the discovery and scheduling order on 27 September 17, 2021. (ECF No. 39.) On October 5, 2022, Defendants’ exhaustion-related motion for summary judgment was 1 granted as to Plaintiff’s retaliation claims against Defendants Lozano, Valdez, Felix, A. Flores, 2 and Chanelo. (ECF No. 56.) 3 On April 10, 2023, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to modify the Court’s 4 discovery and scheduling order to allow the parties time to resolve a discovery dispute and to 5 depose witnesses about their declarations that Arrant recently disclosed and contends supports 6 his claims against Officer Florez and Officer Tapia. (ECF No. 68.) 7 On April 17, 2023, Defendants filed the instant motion for severance of Plaintiff’s claims. 8 (ECF No. 69.) Although Plaintiff received an extension of time, no opposition has been file and 9 the time to do so has passed. Local Rule 230(l). 10 II. 11 LEGAL STANDARD 12 A basic lawsuit is a single claim against a single defendant. Federal Rule of Civil 13 Procedure 18(a) allows a plaintiff to add multiple claims to the lawsuit when they are against the 14 same defendant. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2) allows a plaintiff to join multiple 15 defendants to a lawsuit where the right to relief arises out of the same “transaction, occurrence, 16 or series of transactions” and “any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in 17 the action.” However, unrelated claims that involve different defendants must be brought in 18 separate lawsuits. See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). This rule is not only 19 intended to avoid confusion that arises out of bloated lawsuits, but also to ensure that prisoners 20 pay the required filing fees for their lawsuits and prevent prisoners from circumventing the three 21 strikes rule under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 22 Permissive joinder under Rule 20 “is to be construed liberally in order to promote trial 23 convenience and to expedite the final determination of disputes, thereby preventing multiple 24 lawsuits.” League to Save Lake Tahoe v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 558 F.2d 914, 917 (9th 25 Cir. 1997). The purpose of Rule 20 is to address the “broadest possible scope of action consistent 26 with fairness to the parties; joinder of claims, parties, and remedies is strongly encouraged.” 27 United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 724 (1966). Rule 20 sets forth two 1 each plaintiff or defendant relating to or arising out of the same transaction or occurrence or 2 series of transactions or occurrences; and (2) some question of law or fact common to all parties 3 must arise in the action.” Desert Empire Bank v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 623 F.2d 1371, 1375 (9th 4 Cir. 1980) (citing League to Save Lake Tahoe, 558 F.2d at 917). 5 With respect to the first requirement, courts assess the facts of each case individually to 6 determine whether joinder is sensible in light of the underlying policies of permissive party 7 joinder. Coughlin v. Rogers, 130 F.3d 1348, 1350 (9th Cir. 1997). “The ‘same transaction’ 8 requirement of Rule 20 refers to ‘similarity in the factual background of a claim; claims that arise 9 out of a systematic pattern of events’ and have a ‘very definite logical relationship.’ ” Hubbard v. 10 Hougland, 2010 WL 1416691, at *7 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2010) (quoting Bautista v. Los Angeles 11 County, 216 F.3d 837, 842-843 (9th Cir. 2000)). Additionally, “the mere fact that all [of a 12 plaintiff's] claims arise under the same general law does not necessarily establish a common 13 question of law or fact.” Coughlin, 130 F.3d at 1351. 14 As to the second requirement, commonality under Rule 20 is not a particularly stringent 15 test. See Johnson v. Shaffer, 2013 WL 140115, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2013) (citing Bridgeport 16 Music, Inc. v. 11 C Music, 202 F.R.D. 229, 231 (M.D. Tenn. 2001)). The Rule requires only a 17 single common question, not multiple common questions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20 (“any question of 18 law or fact common to ...”). “The common question may be one of fact or of law and need not be 19 the most important or predominant issue in the litigation.” Johnson, 2013 WL 140115, at *2 20 (citing Mosley v. Gen. Motors Corp., 497 F.2d 1330, 1333 (8th Cir. 1974)). And even if a court 21 finds that the requirements have been met, “a district court must examine whether permissive 22 joinder would ‘comport with principles of fundamental fairness’ or would result in prejudice to 23 either side.” Coleman v. Quaker Oats Company, 232 F.3d 1271, 1296 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing 24 Desert Empire Bank, 623 F.2d at 1375 (finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion 25 when it severed certain plaintiff's claims without finding improper joinder)). 26 The district court may sever claims or parties in order to avoid prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 27 20(b). Courts have also exercised their discretion to sever where “[i]nstead of making the 1 for all parties involved.” Rodriguez v. Tilton, 2013 WL 1163796, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2013) 2 (quoting Wynn v. Nat’l Broad. Co., 234 F. Supp. 2d 1067, 1088 (C.D. Cal. 2002) (finding that 3 even where Rule 20 requirements for joinder are satisfied, the court may exercise its discretion 4 “to sever for at least two reasons: (1) to prevent jury confusion and judicial inefficiency, and (2) 5 to prevent unfair prejudice to the [defendants]”)) (citing Coleman, 232 F.3d at 1350). 6 III. 7 DISCUSSION 8 Defendants argue that Plaintiff improperly attempts to combine into one lawsuit three 9 different claims that should be three different lawsuits. The first claim alleges a First 10 Amendment retaliation claim against Officers Dodson and Garcia arising from two incidents that 11 occurred in May 2018 and July 2018 at North Kern State Prison. The second Eighth Amendment 12 claim against Officer Florez alleging that excessive force was used when restraining and 13 escorting Plaintiff on May 18, 2019 at North Kern. The final claim alleges a retaliation and 14 excessive force claim against Officer Tapia when Tapia allegedly pushed and kicked Plaintiff 15 May 24, 2019 because Plaintiff complained about Officer Florez’s supposed use of force. 16 Defendants submit that through discovery, it is clear now that these three claims arise 17 from different occurrences and lack a common question of law or fact common to all 18 Defendants. Defendants therefore request that the Court sever into two separate lawsuits the 19 claim against Officer Florez and the claims against Officer Tapia from the claims against 20 Officers Dodson and Garcia under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21. 21 With respect to the first requirement, Defendants argue: 22 Here, Arrant’s claims against Officers Dodson and Garcia occurred in May 2021 and July 23 2021—a year prior to the incidents giving rise to the claims against Officer Florez and Officer Tapia. (ECF No. 1 at 10–13, 21–24.) Time alone sufficiently separates the claims 24 against Officers Dodson and Garcia from the claims against Officer Florez and Officer Tapia. See Harris, 2023 WL 2609623, at *1 25 As to the claims against Officer Florez and Officer Tapia, these two claims are 26 completely separate and distinct. (See ECF No. 1 at 21–22.) First, Officer Florez’s 27 interaction with Arrant arose shortly after Arrant threatened a correctional officer. (Georgely Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A [Arrant Dep. Tr. 113–14].) Whereas, Arrant claims that the 1 wrong housing unit. (ECF No. 1 at 23–24.) And, Arrant’s stay in a mental health hospital intervenes and separates these two distinct occurrences. (Georgely Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A 2 [Arrant Dep. Tr. 127–29]; see ECF No. 1 at 22.) 3 (ECF No. 69 at 10.) 4 With respect to the second requirement, Defendants argue: 5 Resolving Arrant’s claims against Officers Dodson and Garcia, Officer Florez, and 6 Officer Tapia will require their own “particularized factual analysis” as to each of the three claims. See Visendi, 733 F.3d at 870 (holding claims failed the second prong when 7 the resolution of one claim did not resolve facts in other claims). This is because the three claims arise from distinct and separate occurrences and are based in different questions of 8 law. See id. 9 (ECF No. 69 at 10.) 10 Here, Defendants argue that they will be prejudiced by presentation of the three claims to 11 the jury. Defendants have filed an answer to the complaint and conducted discovery, despite the 12 claim of misjoinder. Indeed, Defendants have not argued that they will prejudiced in relation the 13 filing of pretrial motions, including a dispositive motion. Accordingly, the Court finds that 14 Defendants’ motion for severance is premature, as the dispositive motion deadline has not yet 15 expired. Given that dispositive motions have not yet been filed, the final claims that will be at 16 issue at trial have yet to be determined. If, Defendants file a motion for summary judgment on 17 any or all of the claims, they may therein renew the request for severance as to all or certain 18 claims. 19 IV. 20 RECOMMENDATION 21 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Defendants’ motion for 22 severance of the claims be denied, without prejudice. 23 This Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge 24 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) 25 days after being served with this Findings and Recommendation, the parties may file written 26 objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 27 Findings and Recommendation.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 1 | specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 2 | 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. ee 5 Dated: _ July 10, 2023 ‘ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28