Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00936/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00936-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JARED M. VILLERY,

Plaintiff,

v.

EDWARD GARCIA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00936-LJO-SAB

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

OBJECTIONS TO ORDER DISMISSING 

COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

(ECF No. 11)

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Jared M. Villery, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 8, 2015, the magistrate judge 

screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found that it did not comply with the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. Plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed with leave to amend and Plaintiff was advised 

that his amended complaint could only bring claims that are properly joined under Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure 18 and 20. On July 30, 2015, Plaintiff filed objections to the magistrate 

judge’s order.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a party may file objections 

to nondispositive order of the magistrate judge. The magistrate judge’s decision on 

nondispositive pretrial issues is reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. Bhan v. NME 

Hospitals, Inc., 929 F.2d 1404, 1414 (9th Cir. 1991); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) (“The district 

judge in the case must . . . set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or contrary to 

law.”). 

Similarly, Local Rule 303(c) allows parties to seek reconsideration by a district judge of a 

Case 1:15-cv-00936-LJO-SAB Document 12 Filed 08/03/15 Page 1 of 3
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

magistrate judge's pretrial rulings. Local Rule 303(c). The assigned district judge shall review 

all such requests for reconsideration under the “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard set 

forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Local Rule 303(f) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a)).

III. ANALYSIS

Plaintiff argues that the magistrate erred by dismissing his complaint without determining 

which of his claims are properly joined as they all allege a series of retaliatory acts and involve 

the same defendants. Plaintiff contends that the magistrate judge had to screen the allegations in 

his complaint and determine which were properly joined. 

Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a complaint must contain “a 

short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 8(a)(2). As the magistrate judge pointed out, Plaintiff’s complaint is fifty pages long and 

brings claims against twenty-five defendants. Plaintiff’s complaint does not comply with Rule 8. 

Similarly, the allegations include events that occurred over a period of one year and do 

not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence. As Plaintiff states in his objection, he is 

alleging forty two separate incidents that occurred over a period of one year. Plaintiff’s 

contention that all the acts are a series of retaliatory actions based upon his pursuit of the 

grievance system at the prison does not make the claims related. 

The Magistrate Judge found that

Plaintiff’s allegations that he was assaulted, denied access to the law library, 

denied visitation, not allowed to work his assigned job, disciplined for failing to 

submit a timesheet and seeking mental health treatment, inmate grievances were 

destroyed, his cell was searched and false charges of possession of weapon were 

filed, he was placed in administrative segregation, and moved to another prison do 

not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence or series of transactions or 

occurrences. Plaintiff alleges that he filed twenty inmate grievances over the 

period of a year and retaliatory acts were taken by different defendants at different 

times in response to different grievances. The Court finds that Plaintiff’s claims 

are not properly joined under Rule 20(a).

(Order Dismissing Complaint for Failure to Comply With Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 7:7-

15, ECF No. 6.)

While Plaintiff argues that his claim is that all acts are based on a claim of harassment, 

this is not sufficient to allow unrelated claims to proceed in the same action. Plaintiff’s 

Case 1:15-cv-00936-LJO-SAB Document 12 Filed 08/03/15 Page 2 of 3
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

complaint in this action is the type of “mishmash” of claims that courts have found not to be 

properly proceeding in a single suit. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). 

“[U]nrelated claims against different defendants belong in separate suits, not only to prevent the 

sort of morass produced by multi-claim, multi-defendants suits . . ., but also to ensure that 

prisoners pay all fees required under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Owens v. Hinsley, 635 

F.3d 950, 952 (7th Cir. 2011) (internal punctuation and citations omitted). Based upon review of 

the complaint, the Magistrate Judge’s ruling was not clearly erroneous. 

Plaintiff seeks to have this Court conduct a review of his complaint to determine which of 

his claims are properly joined in this action. The Fresno Division of the Eastern District of 

California has one of the heaviest District Judge caseload in the entire nation. The Court 

declines to expend its already limited resources wading through Plaintiff’s complaint to 

determine which claims are properly joined as requested by Plaintiff. It is for Plaintiff to submit 

a complaint that complies with the Rules of Civil Procedure and if he declines to do so this 

action will be dismissed. 

IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s objections to the Magistrate Judge’s screening order, which the Court 

construes as a motion for reconsideration, are DENIED; 

2. Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file an 

amended complaint that complies with the July 8, 2015 screening order; and

3. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, this 

action will be dismissed for failure to comply with a court order and failure to 

prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: July 31, 2015

 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

 United States District Judge

Case 1:15-cv-00936-LJO-SAB Document 12 Filed 08/03/15 Page 3 of 3