(PC) Felix v. Cazores ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TYLO JEROME FELIX, JR., Case No. 1:21-cv-01472-JLT-SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S LODGED AMENDED COMPLAINT 13 v. (Doc. 28) 14 S. DOUGHERTY, et al., ORDER SEVERING CERTAIN CLAIMS 15 Defendants. AND DEFENDANTS AND DIRECTING CLERK OF THE COURT TO OPEN NEW 16 ACTION 17 18 Plaintiff Tylo Jerome Felix, Jr., is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 19 action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 I. BACKGROUND 21 Plaintiff filed his original complaint on October 1, 2021. (Doc. 1.) The Court issued its 22 First Screening Order on February 3, 2023. (Doc. 16.) The Court found Plaintiff’s complaint 23 stated excessive force claims against Defendants Cazores, Smotherman, Diaz, Velasquez and 24 Arreazola in violation of the Eighth Amendment, but the remaining claims against any Defendant 25 were not cognizable. (Id. at 9.) On May 9, 2023, Plaintiff timely filed a first amended complaint. 26 (Doc. 21.) 27 On January 31, 2024, the Court issued its Second Screening Order. (Doc. 25.) The Court 1 Procedure. (Id. at 4-6.) The Court also found Plaintiff plausibly alleged an Eighth Amendment 2 deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim against Defendant Dougherty and Eighth 3 Amendment excessive force claims against Defendants Cazores, Smotherman, Diaz, Velasquez 4 and Arreazola. (Id. at 6-13.) Plaintiff was directed to do one of the following within 21 days of 5 the date of the order: (1) file a second amended complaint; or (2) file a notice that he did not wish 6 to file a second amended complaint and instead wished to either (a) proceed only on his Eighth 7 Amendment excessive force claims against Defendant Cazores, Smotherman, Diaz, Velasquez 8 and Arreazola, or (b) to proceed only on his Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious 9 medical needs claim against Defendant Dougherty; or (3) file a notice of voluntary dismissal. (Id. 10 at 14.) On February 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Clarification of order and 21-day 11 extension.” (Doc. 26.) 12 On February 28, 2024, the Court issued its Order Regarding Plaintiff’s Request For 13 Clarification And Extension Of Time Within Which To Respond To The Court’s Second 14 Screening Order. (Doc. 27.) The Court discussed the applicability of Rules 18 and 20 of the 15 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (id. at 3-5), and granted Plaintiff a 21-day extension of time (id. 16 at 6). 17 On March 18, 2024, Plaintiff’s amended complaint was lodged with the Court. (Doc. 28.) 18 The lodged document consists of an amended form complaint bearing the instant case number 19 asserting claims against a previously named defendant and three newly named defendants (id. at 20 1-8), and an additional form complaint bearing no case number and asserting claims against five 21 previously named defendants in this action (id. at 9-16). 22 II. DISCUSSION 23 Under Rule 20(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the district court may sever 24 claims or parties in order to avoid prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(b). Courts have also exercised 25 their discretion to sever where “[i]nstead of making the resolution of [the] case more efficient ... 26 joinder would instead confuse and complicate the issues for all parties involved.” Rodriguez v. 27 Tilton, No. 2:08-cv-1028 GEB AC P, 2013 WL 1163796, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2013) 1 even where Rule 20 requirements for joinder are satisfied, the court may exercise its discretion 2 “to sever for at least two reasons: (1) to prevent jury confusion and judicial inefficiency, and (2) 3 to prevent unfair prejudice to the [defendants]”] citing Coleman [v. Quaker Oats Company, 232 4 F.3d 1271, 1296 (9th Cir. 2000)]”). 5 As stated in the Second Screening Order and the February 28, 2024 clarification order, the 6 claims presented in Plaintiff’s first amended complaint cannot proceed in the same action. (See 7 Doc. 25 at 4-6 & Doc. 27 at 3-5.) The documents lodged with the Court on March 18, 2024, 8 reveal that Plaintiff seeks to comply with the Court’s Second Screening Order by submitting an 9 amended complaint alleging claims against certain defendants in this action, and by submitting 10 another complaint asserting other claims against other defendants to be filed in a new separate 11 action. Therefore, the Court will order that the amended complaint lodged March 18, 2024, 12 bearing the instant case number, naming S. Dougherty, J. Trovao, C. Bencito, and G. Ravijot as 13 defendants, be filed in this action and designated Plaintiff’s second amended complaint. The 14 Court will also order that the separate complaint lodged March 18, 2024, naming C. Cazores, J. 15 Smotherman, D. Diaz, A. Velasquez and Arreazola, as defendants, be severed from this action 16 and filed as a new action, to be assigned to the same district and magistrate judges and designated 17 as the original complaint in the new action. Finally, for that new action to which a new case 18 number will be assigned, Plaintiff will be directed to submit and application to proceed in forma 19 pauperis, or the required filing fee of $405, within 30 days of the date of this order. 20 III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 21 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 22 1. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to file pages 1 through 8 of the document lodged 23 March 18, 2024 (Doc. 28) as Plaintiff’s second amended complaint in this action; 24 2. Plaintiff’s claims against previously named defendants C. Cazores, J. Smotherman, D. 25 Diaz, A. Velasquez, and Arreazola are SEVERED from this action; 26 3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to file pages 9 through 16 of the document lodged 27 March 18, 2024 (Doc. 28) as the original complaint in a separate and new action, to be 1 action are S. Dougherty, J. Trovao, C. Bencito, and G. Ravijot; 2 4. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to modify the docket for this action to reflect only 3 the following individuals as defendants in this action in accordance with the now- 4 designated second amended complaint: 5 a. S. Dougherty 6 b. J. Trovao 7 c. C. Bencito 8 d. G. Ravijot 9 5. The following individuals are DISMISSED because Plaintiff’s now-designated second 10 amended complaint does not name them as defendants in this action1: 11 a. E. McDaniels 12 b. C. Bell 13 c. S. Gates 14 6. Plaintiff is advised the Court will screen the now-designated second amended complaint 15 in this action in due course; and 16 7. Plaintiff SHALL submit either an application to proceed in forma pauperis or the required 17 $405 filing fee in the new action, to be assigned a new case number, within 30 days of the 18 date of service of this order. Once either the application to proceed in forma pauperis has 19 been granted or the $405 filing fee has been paid in the new action, the complaint will be 20 screened in due course. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 Dated: March 20, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 1 As the Court found in its Second Screening Order, Plaintiff failed to state any cognizable claims against Defendants