Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00775/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00775-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERRELL D. CURRY,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAMES TILTON; et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-775 MHP (pr)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

DISMISS AND SETTING SCHEDULE

A. Motion To Dismiss

Defendants have moved to dismiss this action due to misjoinder, contending that

plaintiff has "improperly asserted unrelated claims against different Defendants" and "failed

to allege that Defendants participated in the same transaction or series of transactions or to

allege that there is a question of fact that is common to all Defendants." Motion To Dismiss,

pp. 1-2, citing Rules 18(a) and 20(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff has

opposed the motion. 

In this action, Curry has asserted claims for an alleged ADA/Rehabilitation Act

violation, as well as for deliberate indifference to his safety. The claims are connected. The

complaint, as amended, alleged that from about December 30, 2004 until about October

2006, defendants SVSP and CDCR denied plaintiff a reasonable accommodation for his right

arm paralysis that made it difficult/impossible to lift things. The complaint, as amended,

also alleged that plaintiff fell down the stairs and hurt himself on April 4, 2006 while

carrying materials and while restrained in handcuffs. At the time of the fall, plaintiff

allegedly was being escorted by defendant correctional officer Caropreso, who (a) had

Case 3:07-cv-00775-EMC Document 27 Filed 07/28/10 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

refused to get help to carry Curry's paperwork, (b) had refused to change the handcuffs

despite Curry's statement that he had a chrono for waist-chain handcuffs that would have put

his hands at his side, and (c) was not holding on to Curry when Curry descended the stairs. 

In his deliberate indifference claim, Curry attributes the fall on the stairs at least in part to

having the wrong kind of handcuffs and not being held by Caropreso as he descended the

stairs. He also claimed that defendants Evans and Ponder were responsible for but failed to

properly train Caropreso about escorting inmates down stairs.

To join defendants together in one action, the complaint must meet two specific

requirements: (1) a right to relief must be 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 (2) the action must raise a question of fact or law common

to all defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a). 

Defendants correctly argue that a plaintiff may not join together unrelated claims, but

incorrectly assert that plaintiff's claims against the two sets of defendants are unrelated. 

Plaintiff's ADA/Rehabilitation Act claim spans a greater time period than his deliberate

indifference to safety claim, but part of the ADA/Rehabilitation Act claim overlaps with the

deliberate indifference to safety claim and arises out of the same occurrence. Adjudication of

plaintiff's claim about the fall on the stairs raises questions about whether it was due to the

failure to accommodate his disability and/or the individual defendants' deliberate

indifference, as plaintiff alleges that he was at the time of the fall carrying legal materials

(thus raising the possibility that his unaccommodated disability contributed to or caused the

fall) as well as that he was in the wrong kind of mechanical restraints and was not being held

by the escorting officer (thus raising the possibility that the individual defendants' deliberate

indifference to the risk to his safety contributed to or caused the fall). The possibility that

one set of defendants may be liable and the other may not be liable for the fall does not

compel severance of the claims. In fact, Rule 20(a)(2)(A) contemplates it as an instance in

which joinder would be proper: defendants may be joined where a right to relief is asserted

against them "jointly, severally or in the alternative." The claim about the fall on the stairs

Case 3:07-cv-00775-EMC Document 27 Filed 07/28/10 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

also will raise at least one question of fact common to the defendants: what caused plaintiff

to fall down the stairs? It would not promote judicial economy to have one trial to determine

whether plaintiff fell due to the unaccommodated disability and another trial to determine

whether plaintiff fell due to the failure to hold him and to provide a particular type of

mechanical restraints. Defendants' motion to dismiss is DENIED. (Docket # 22.) 

B. Scheduling

In order to move this case toward resolution, the court sets the following schedule:

1. No later than August 27, 2010, plaintiff and defendants must propound any

written discovery requests (e.g., requests for production of documents, interrogatories, and

requests for admissions) they wish to make on each other. 

2. If defendants wish to take plaintiff’s deposition, they must do so no later than

September 17, 2010. 

3. All discovery must be completed no later than November 5, 2010. Plaintiff is

cautioned that the court generally is not involved in the discovery process and only becomes

involved when there is a dispute between the parties about discovery responses. Discovery

requests and responses normally are exchanged between the parties without any copy sent to

the court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d) (listing discovery requests and responses that "must not"

be filed with the court until they are used in the proceeding or the court orders otherwise). 

4. Any motion to compel discovery must be filed and served by November 5,

2010. If a motion to compel is filed, any opposition to it must be filed and served no later

than fourteen days after the motion is filed and any reply in support of the motion must be

filed and served no later than fourteen days after the opposition is filed. The parties are

reminded that they must make a good faith effort to meet and confer to attempt to resolve any

discovery dispute before filing any motion to compel. 

5. Any motion for summary judgment (or other dispositive motion) must be filed

and served no later than December 17, 2010. 

6. Any opposition to the dispositive motion must be filed and served no later than

January 21, 2011. Plaintiff is cautioned to read the notice regarding summary judgment

Case 3:07-cv-00775-EMC Document 27 Filed 07/28/10 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

motions in the order of service as he prepares any opposition to a motion for summary

judgment.

7. Any reply brief in support of the motion must be filed and served no later than

February 4, 2011. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 28, 2010 ______________________

 Marilyn Hall Patel

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00775-EMC Document 27 Filed 07/28/10 Page 4 of 4