Opinion
1:21-cv-904-HBK
12-20-2021
URIE NORRIS, Plaintiff, v. DONNY YOUNGBLOOD, ET. AL., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS; ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO STRIKE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; AND ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OR NOTICE FOR COURT TO SCREEN HIS INITIAL COMPLAINT
TWENTY-ONE DAY DEADLINE (DOC. NOS. 15, 16)
HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's second motion for sanctions, filed August 3, 2021. (Doc. No. 15). Plaintiff's motion pertains to mail-related issues and tampering he believes occurred at Kern County Leardo Jail. (See generally Id.). The Court previously entered an order on August 2, 2021 denying Plaintiff's first motion for sanctions that addressed the same allegations. (See Doc. No. 13). It appears the Court's August 2, 2021 Order and Plaintiff's August 3, 2021 second motion for sanctions may have passed in the mail. For the reasons set forth in the Court's August 2, 2021 Order and incorporated herein by reference, Plaintiff's second motion for sanction is also denied. Further, any relief concerning mail tampering violations at Kern County Leardo Detention Facility would be moot because Plaintiff is now incarcerated at the California Rehabilitation Center. (See generally docket, Doc. No. 13 at 1-2).
The docket also reveals that Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on August 12, 2021. (Doc. No. 16). The Court has not yet screened Plaintiff's initial complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The initial complaint raised claims stemming from Plaintiff's conditions of confinement at the county jail, e.g., stained walls, dirty sheets, etc. (See generally Doc. No. 1). The FAC adds a First Amendment claim related to the mail tampering but refers the Court to Plaintiff's previous Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claims set forth in his initial complaint. (Compare Doc. Nos. 1, 16). Thus, the FAC is not a free-standing complaint because it does not include of Plaintiff's claim but instead refers back to the initial complaint. Because the FAC is not a proper pleading, the Court will direct the Clerk to strike the FAC.
Nonetheless, the Court recognizes that Plaintiff has a right to file an amended complaint before service or response to his original complaint. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). Consequently, Plaintiff may file a proper first amended complaint as a freestanding document. Plaintiff should be aware that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit complaints to include only related claims against a party and permit joinder of all defendants alleged to be liable for the “same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrence” where “any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 18(a) and 20(a)(2) (emphasis added). The Rules do not permit conglomeration of unrelated claims against unrelated defendants in a single lawsuit. Unrelated claims must be filed in separate lawsuits. Preliminarily it appears that Plaintiff's First Amendment mail tampering claim is not related to his Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claims because they involve different facts, that occurred at different times and involve different defendants. Thus, Plaintiff must decide whether he wishes to pursue his conditions of confinement claims set forth in the initial complaint or the mail tampering claims referenced in the FAC and set forth in his motions for sanctions. Plaintiff then may file a separate complaint on his unrelated action.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
1. Plaintiffs second motion for sanctions (Doc. No. 15) is DENIED.
2. The Clerk of Court is directed to strike Plaintiffs first amended complaint (Doc. No. 16).
3. Within twenty-one days (21) of receipt of this Order, Plaintiff shall either file a freestanding first amended complaint as set forth above for screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A or he shall file a notice to the Court that he wishes the Court to screen his initial complaint (Doc. No. 1) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
4. Failure to timely comply with this Order or explain non-compliance will result in the recommendation that this case be dismissed for lack of prosecution.