Opinion
No. 2:14-cv-0965 GEB KJN P
09-04-2015
DANNY BELL, Plaintiff, v. A. PAYAN, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On July 24, 2015, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.
The magistrate judge recommended that plaintiff's motion to file a fourth amended complaint raising his previously dismissed claim challenging the allegedly erroneous restitution order be denied pursuant to the law of the case doctrine.
In his objections, plaintiff alleges that his fourth amended complaint also raised a claim alleging that his criminal record contained erroneous entries. To the extent plaintiff alleges that these entries concerned the allegedly improper restitution order, this claim is dismissed for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge in the findings and recommendations.
It is not clear that plaintiff's fourth amended complaint raises a claim alleging erroneous entries in his criminal record unrelated to the allegedly erroneous restitution order. In any event, such a claim is not made against the operative defendants, Duffy and Payan. In addition, a claim alleging erroneous entries in plaintiff's criminal record is unrelated to the claim on which this action is proceeding, i.e., that defendants Duffy and Payan improperly calculated plaintiff's filing fees. Plaintiff may not bring unrelated claims against unrelated parties in a single action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(s), 20(a)(2); Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 952 (7th Cir. 2011); George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). For this reason, plaintiff's request to raise a claim alleging erroneous entries in his criminal record is denied.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations filed July 24, 2015, are adopted in full; and
2. Plaintiff's motion to file a fourth amended complaint (ECF No. 44) is denied with respect to his request to add his previously dismissed claims challenging the allegedly erroneous restitution order;
3. Plaintiff's motion to file a fourth amended complaint alleging erroneous entries in his criminal record is denied for the reasons discussed above. Dated: September 4, 2015
/s/_________
GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
Senior United States District Judge