Opinion
Civil Action No. 12-cv-03006-BNB
01-23-2013
JEREMY PINSON, Applicant, v. DAVID BERKABILE, Respondent.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Applicant Jeremy Pinson's Amended Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 filed on January 4, 2013.
Mr. Pinson is a prisoner in the custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons and is currently incarcerated at ADX in Florence, Colorado. Mr. Pinson initiated this action by filing an Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on November 15, 2012, challenging the disciplinary proceeding in Incident Report No. 2076801. Mr. Pinson also has filed a Prisoner's Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 in a Habeas Corpus Action
On January 4, 2013, Mr. Pinson and another inmate, Erwin Villatoro, filed an Amended Application. For the reasons stated below the Amended Application will be stricken.
In the Amended Application, Mr. Pinson and Mr. Villatoro seek to add Mr. Villatoro as a second applicant and to challenge fifteen of Mr. Villatoro's disciplinary proceedings along with Mr. Pinson's one disciplinary proceeding. In particular, they claim that Mr. Villatoro is mentally ill and was not given a competency exam or staff representation and was denied his right to present witness testimony.
Although Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes the joinder of parties and claims that present a common question of law or fact, Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 allows the Court on its own, at any time, and on just terms to drop a party.
Rule 20(a) applies and provides as follows:
(1) Persons may join in one action as plaintiffs if:
(A) they assert any right to relief 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 plaintiffs will arise in the action.
Mr. Pinson and Mr. Villatoro currently are housed at ADX in Florence, Colorado, and claim they have mental health issues and were denied a competency evaluation at their many disciplinary proceedings. The similarities stop there. They are challenging the particulars of their own disciplinary proceedings. Their claims do not arise out of the same transactions or occurrences, nor can it be said that there is a common question of law or fact under these circumstances relating to their individual disciplinary actions. Therefore, the Court will order the amended application stricken. Mr. Villatoro may file a new and separate action. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Amended Application, ECF No. 6, is ordered stricken.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 23rd day of January, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
______________________________
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge
United States District Court