Opinion
Civil Action 20-512
12-18-2020
CORDIRO R. BROWN, Plaintiff, v. JOHN WETZEL, MALINDA ADAMS, RICHARD COON, and KARAN FEATHER, PHILLIP MCCRACKEN, PAMALA BEHR, and EMMANUELLA FELIX, Defendants.
CHRISTY CRISWELL WIEGAND, DISTRICT JUDGE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
MAUREEN P. KELLY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I. RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Cordiro R. Brown (“Plaintiff”), an inmate currently incarcerated at State Correctional Institution Mercer (“SCI-Mercer”), brings this pro se civil rights action. For the reasons that follow, it is respectfully recommended that the Court remove Defendant Emmanuella Felix (“Felix”) as a party and dismiss the claims against her without prejudice because she is not properly joined in this action.
II. REPORT
A. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP Motion”) on April 9, 2020. ECF No. 1. The Court provisionally granted the IFP Motion, subject to Defendants challenging whether Plaintiff, who has three strikes under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, is in fact under imminent danger of serious physical injury within the contemplation of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). ECF No. 15. Thereafter, Plaintiff's original Complaint was filed on June 11, 2020. ECF No. 16.
In his original Complaint, Plaintiff brought Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims arising out of his alleged risk of contracting COVID-19 at SCI-Mercer. He asserted his claims against four Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (“DOC”) employees: John Wetzel (“Wetzel”), Melinda Adams (“Adams”), Richard Coon (“Coon”) and Karen Feather (“Feather”).
On June 30, 2020, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint as of right. ECF No. 22. He then filed another Amended Complaint on July 31, 2020, which appears to be identical to his previously filed Amended Complaint. ECF No. 32.
Plaintiff adds three Defendants in his recent Amended Complaint: Phillip McCracken (“McCracken”), Pamela Behr (“Behr”) and Emmanuella Felix (“Felix”). McCracken and Behr are both DOC employees and work at SCI-Mercer. Id. ¶¶ 5, 7.
Unlike the other Defendants, Felix is not a DOC employee and she does not work at SCI-Mercer. Id. ¶ 9; ECF No. 67 ¶ 3. Instead, Plaintiff claims that he was “approve[d] to have visits with Felix and [their] children” and that he filed a lawsuit against her related to visitation. ECF No. 32 ¶¶ 33, 38. Plaintiff alleges that Felix provided false information to Behr related to Plaintiff communicating with her, threatening her, and producing false court documents to her. Id. ¶¶ 3132, 39-40. As a result, Plaintiff claims, he was issued misconducts and ordered to cease communication with Felix. Id. ¶¶ 32, 40-41.
The Court notes that Plaintiff appears to have filed three lawsuits against Felix related to visitation or custody on September 11, 2017, January 15, 2019 and April 23, 2020 in the Eighth Judicial District Court for Clark County, Nevada. See Case Nos. D-17-558449-V; D-19-582707-C; and D-20-606907-C.
In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff claims that all Defendants, except Felix, have violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights and various criminal statutes as a result of their deliberate indifference to his living conditions arising out of his potential exposure to COVID-19 and his alleged exposure to e-cigarettes and/or tobacco smoke. Id. ¶¶ 17-30, 48-74, 75. Plaintiff asserts claims for defamation and retaliation arising out of his dispute with Felix, and he also appears to claim that Defendants at SCI-Mercer engaged in retaliation with respect to his complaints about tobacco smoke. Id. ¶¶ 31-47, 74. As to Felix, Plaintiff only asserts claims for defamation and retaliation. Id. ¶ 74.
B. LEGAL STANDARD
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20, persons may be joined in one action as defendants if:
(A) any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and
(B) any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.Fed. R. Civ. P. 20.
“Rule 20(a) imposes two specific requirements for the permissive joinder of defendants: (1) a right to relief must be asserted by the plaintiff against each defendant relating to or arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions; and (2) some common question of law or fact must be present with respect to all parties in the action (i.e. a common thread).” Washington v. Folino, No. 11-1046, 2013 WL 998013, at *3 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 28, 2013) (quoting Intercon Research Assoc., Ltd. v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 696 F.2d 53, 57 (7th Cir. 1982)) (internal quotations omitted).
While Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 18 permits joinder of multiple claims against a party, “[d]espite the broad language of Rule 18(a), plaintiff may join multiple defendants in a single action only if plaintiff asserts at least one claim to relief against each of them that arises out of the same transaction or occurrence and presents questions of law or fact common to all.” Id. (citing 7 Wright & Miller, Federal Prac. & Proc. § 1655(3d ed); Intercon, 696 F.2d at 56-57) (internal quotations omitted).
“For courts applying Rule 20 and related rules, ‘the impulse is toward entertaining the broadest possible scope of actions consistent with fairness to the parties; joinder of claims, parties and remedies is strongly encouraged.'” Hagan v. Rogers, 570 F.3d 146, 153 (3d Cir. 2009) (quoting United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 724 (1966)). This liberal application, however, “is not a license to join unrelated claims and defendants in one lawsuit.” McKinney v. Prosecutor's Office, No. 13-2553, 2014 WL 2574414, at *14 (D. N.J. 2014) (citing Paladino v. Newsome, No. 12-2021, 2012 WL 3315571, at *5 (D. N.J. Aug. 13, 2012) (internal quotations omitted). “Thus, multiple claims against a single party are fine, but Claim A against Defendant 1 should not be joined with unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2.” George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007).
To remedy a misjoinder, the Court may add or drop a party or sever any claims. Fed.R.Civ.P. 21. The Court has broad discretion in determining whether to sever a party pursuant to Rule 21. Boyer v. Johnson Matthey, Inc., No. 02-8382, 2004 WL 835082, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 16, 2004).
C. DISCUSSION
Upon review, the Court finds that Felix should be removed as a party in this action. Plaintiff's defamation and retaliation claims against Felix do not share any transaction or occurrence in common with his pending claims against the other Defendants. While Plaintiff's claims against the DOC Defendants arise, broadly speaking, out of the conditions of his confinement at SCI-Mercer and his complaints regarding those conditions, Felix is not a DOC employee and has no alleged control over the conditions of his confinement. Instead, his claims against Felix involve false statements she allegedly made and an unrelated dispute over child visitation rights. Accordingly, Plaintiff's claims against Felix are not properly joined in this action, and the Court should order that she be removed as a party pursuant to Rule 21.
D. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth herein, it is respectfully recommended that Defendant Felix should be removed as a party to this action. The claims against her should be dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff's re-filing his claims against Felix in a separate action in the appropriate forum.
In accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Local Rule 72.D.2, the parties are permitted to file written objections in accordance with the schedule established in the docket entry reflecting the filing of this Report and Recommendation. Objections are to be submitted to the Clerk of Court, United States District Court, 700 Grant Street, Room 3110, Pittsburgh, PA 15219. Failure to timely file objections will waive the right to appeal. Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 193 n. 7 (3d Cir. 2011). Any party opposing objections may file their response to the objections within fourteen (14) days thereafter in accordance with Local Civil Rule 72.D.2.