Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-00981/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-00981-15/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES BOWELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:17-cv-0981 KJM KJN P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se, in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. This action proceeds on plaintiff’s claims that defendants Lewis and Allison, both 

employed in Sacramento, violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights based on forced TB skin tests. 

(See ECF No. 17 at 2.) While plaintiff’s February 24, 2020 motion was pending, plaintiff filed a 

second motion for court order on March 5, 2020. His latest motion is styled, “Imminent Danger 

Exist [sic] Irreparable Harm.” (ECF No. 73.) Plaintiff again recounts various medical doctors’

alleged medical malpractice while plaintiff is incarcerated at RJ Donovan State Prison (“RJD”) in 

San Diego, California, but now appears to claim that comprehensive deprivation of medical care 

may demonstrate deliberate indifference. It is unclear what relief plaintiff seeks. 

Nevertheless, as the court previously explained, the medical doctors named in his instant 

filing are not named as defendants herein, and the medical treatment and alleged omissions took 

Case 2:17-cv-00981-KJM-KJN Document 74 Filed 03/10/20 Page 1 of 2
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

place while plaintiff was housed at RJD in San Diego, and are wholly unrelated to the instant 

claims.1 Because plaintiff is housed at RJD, plaintiff must pursue his remedies in the appropriate 

court in San Diego. (See also ECF No. 72.) 

For the above reasons, as well as the court’s reasons set forth in its prior order (ECF No. 

72), plaintiff’s motion is denied without prejudice to plaintiff raising such claims in the proper 

forum. Plaintiff is advised to refrain from filing allegations concerning medical care at RJD in 

this action because this court has no jurisdiction over such claims. (Id.) At the present time, no 

further filing by plaintiff is due until the court rules on defendants’ motion, which plaintiff has 

already opposed. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 73) is denied 

without prejudice.

Dated: March 10, 2020

/bowe0981.den2

1

 A plaintiff may properly assert multiple claims against a single defendant. Fed. Rule Civ. P. 

18. Also, a plaintiff may join multiple defendants in one action where “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 and occurrences” and “any question of law 

or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). Unrelated 

claims against different defendants must be pursued in separate lawsuits. See George v. Smith, 

507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). This rule is intended “not only to prevent the sort of morass [a 

multiple claim, multiple defendant] suit produce[s], but also to ensure that prisoners pay the 

required filing fees -- for the Prison Litigation Reform Act limits to 3 the number of frivolous 

suits or appeals that any prisoner may file without prepayment of the required fees. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(g).” George, 507 F.3d at 607.

Case 2:17-cv-00981-KJM-KJN Document 74 Filed 03/10/20 Page 2 of 2