(PC) Matthew A. Lawrie v. Christian Pfeiffer ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MATTHEW A. LAWRIE, 1:21-cv-00724 DAD-GSA-PC 12 ORDER ADDRESSING PLAINTIFF’S Plaintiff, MOTION 13 (ECF No. 24.) vs. 14 CHRISTIAN PFEIFFER, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 I. BACKGROUND 24 Matthew A. Lawrie (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 25 pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 22, 2021, Plaintiff 26 filed the Complaint commencing this action at the United States District Court for the Central 27 District of California. (ECF No. 1.) On April 30, 2021, the case was transferred to this court. 28 (ECF No. 4.) 1 On March 14, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion in which he made multiple requests, which 2 are addressed below. (ECF No. 24.) 3 II. REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL AND TRIAL DATES 4 Plaintiff requests a hearing to set out pretrial and trial dates for this case, however 5 Plaintiff’s request is premature. It too early to prepare for trial in this case as Plaintiff’s 6 Complaint has been dismissed for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend, and none of the 7 defendants have appeared in this case. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request shall be denied. 8 III. REQUEST FOR TRANSFER 9 Plaintiff requests a transfer to Mule Creek State Prison. Plaintiff’s request for transfer 10 was addressed by the Court in the findings and recommendations issued on April 26, 2022. (ECF 11 No. 27.) Pursuant to the findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file objections within 12 fourteen days. 13 IV. EARLY NEUTRAL EVALUATION CONFERENCE 14 Plaintiff requests an early neutral evaluation conference to determine if this case can be 15 settled. Because none of the defendants have appeared in this case it is too early to schedule a 16 settlement conference. This request shall be denied without prejudice. 17 V. REQUEST FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF 18 Plaintiff requests declaratory relief against defendant Pfeiffer. In light of the fact that 19 Plaintiff’s Complaint against defendant Pfeiffer was dismissed on April 25, 2022 for failure to 20 state a claim with leave to amend, Plaintiff’s request for declaratory relief against Defendant 21 Pfeiffer is moot at this stage of the proceedings and shall be denied as such. 22 VI. DISCRIMINATION CLAIM 23 Plaintiff alleges that he was discriminated against by KVSP supervisors T. Redmon and 24 Vargas on December 29, 2021, when they made false statements in documents (Classification 25 Committee Chrono), which increased the risk that Plaintiff will be harmed and affected his ability 26 to be found suitable for parole at his April 4, 2023 EPED (Elderly Parole Eligibility Date) 27 hearing. Plaintiff requests an order removing and rewriting the December 29, 2021 Chrono. 28 /// 1 Plaintiff’s claim for discrimination cannot be addressed in this case. First, the events in 2 this claim allegedly took place on December 29, 2021, which is after the present case was filed, 3 and Plaintiff has not been granted leave to add allegations of events occurring after the initiation 4 of this suit on April 22, 2021. Moreover, the claim for discrimination is an unrelated claim that 5 cannot be brought in the present case, pursuant to Rule 18 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 6 “The controlling principle appears in Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a): ‘A party asserting a claim to relief 7 as an original claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, may join, either as 8 independent or as alternate claims, as many claims, legal, equitable, or maritime, as the party has 9 against an opposing party.’ Thus multiple claims against a single party are fine, but Claim A 10 against Defendant 1 should not be joined with unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2. Unrelated 11 claims against different defendants belong in different suits, not only to prevent the sort of morass 12 [a multiple claim, multiple defendant] suit produce[s], but also to ensure that prisoners pay the 13 required filing fees-for the Prison Litigation Reform Act limits to 3 the number of frivolous suits 14 or appeals that any prisoner may file without prepayment of the required fees. 28 U.S.C. § 15 1915(g).” George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). 16 Therefore, if Plaintiff decides to bring his claim for discrimination against KVSP 17 supervisors T. Redmon and Vargas, he will need to file a new case. Thus, Plaintiff’s request for 18 an order removing and rewriting the December 29, 2021 Chrono, is denied 19 VII. CONCLUSION 20 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 21 1. Plaintiff’s request for a hearing to set out pretrial and trial dates for this case is 22 denied; 23 2. Plaintiff’s request for a transfer to Mule Creek State Prison was addressed by the 24 Court in the findings and recommendations issued on April 26, 2022, and pursuant 25 to the findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file objections in the next 26 fourteen days, if he so wishes; 27 3. Plaintiff’s request for an early neutral evaluation conference is denied, without 28 prejudice; 1 4. Plaintiff’s request for declaratory relief against defendant Pfeiffer is denied as 2 moot; and 3 5. Plaintiff’s request for an order in this case removing and rewriting Plaintiff’s 4 December 29, 2021 Chrono is denied. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 Dated: April 27, 2022 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28