Opinion
Civil Action 00-0035-CB-C.
July 6, 2000.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This action is before the Court on Plaintiff's "Motion for Permission to Amend" ("motion to amend") (Doc. 25). This matter has been referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.2(c)(4). It is recommended that the motion be denied for the reasons set forth herein.
I. Motion to Amend . (Doc. 25)
In Plaintiff's motion to amend (Doc. 25), Plaintiff seeks to add unidentified officials at Loxley WR/Work Center ("Loxley") as defendants. Plaintiff claims that he was mysteriously transferred from Fountain Correctional Facility ("Fountain" to Loxley, which was not the pre-approved facility where Plaintiff was to be transferred, i.e., Red Eagle Honor Farm, Childersburg WR/Boot and Work Camp, or Elmore Correctional Facility ("Elmore"). Plaintiff complains that he has received threats from various Loxley officers due to his requests to a use a law library and to have access to various rules and regulations. Plaintiff alleges that he was advised by Loxley officials that there was not a law library at Loxley, nor was there access to a law library. Plaintiff avers that Captain Nelson obtained several cases from Fountain for Plaintiff, but told Plaintiff this was the last time because Loxley is a work camp, and that if Plaintiff needed a law library, he will be sent back to Fountain.
Plaintiff contends that he should not be threatened with a transfer from Loxley to Fountain and that Elmore, which was a prison approved by the Central Review Board, has a law library. Plaintiff states that when inmates are taken to Fountain for medical treatment, he can be taken to use the law library. Plaintiff believes that this is a conspiracy by both wardens, and seeks an order not to be transferred back to Fountain and not to be denied access to the courts.
II. Discussion .
Leave to amend a complaint after responsive pleadings have been filed "shall be freely given when justice so requires." Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a); see Shipner v. Eastern Au Lines, Inc., 868 F.2d 401, 407 (11th Cir. 1989). However, leave to amend a complaint will be denied when the amendment's allegations do not relate to the claims asserted in the complaint, Taylor v. Macomber, No. 97 Civ. 4127(DAB), 1999 WL 349696, at *6 (S.D.N Y May 27, 1999); Sturdevant v. Haferman, 798 F. Supp. 536, 541 (E.D. Wis. 1992), and when a defendant is sought to be added who has only unrelated claims alleged against him, Taylor, 1999 WL 34696, at *6.
In Plaintiff's motion to amend (Doc. 25), he complains about being transferred to a facility that was not the pre-approved facility and to a facility that does not have a law library or ready access to a law library and about threats of being transferred back to Fountain if he wants access to a law library. Whereas, in the original complaint Plaintiff claims that he is not allowed to call his mother at her work and that a piece of his legal mail was delayed in reaching him which prevented him from appealing a federal ruling. Thus, the claims in the motion to amend are distinct from Plaintiff's claims in his original complaint, and do not supplement the complaint. C.f. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(d) (A court may allow an amendment to the complaint containing events that occurred subsequent to the filing of a complaint which supplement the complaint.).
Moreover, the defendants in the motion to amend are identified as Loxley officials. Therefore, these unnamed officials who are only identified by their Loxley employment are different from Defendants in the original complaint who are employed at Fountain. Cf. Fed.R.Civ.P. 20 (a) (provides for the joinder of a defendant "if there is . . . any right to relief in respect of or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences and if any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action."). Thus, the Court has before it in the motion to amend a request to amend claims unrelated to the original claims and to the original Defendants and to add defendants who are not Defendants to the original complaint.
III. Conclusion .
Based upon the foregoing reasons, and because Defendants' summary judgment motion is pending, it is recommended that Plaintiff's motion to amend (Doc. 25) be denied.
It appears to the undersigned that the claimis in the motion to amend should be brought in a separate action.