Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01054/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01054-3/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

GLENN DAVID O‟NEAL,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. PETERSON, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2: 13-cv-1054 KJN P

ORDER 

Introduction

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is defendants‟ motion to dismiss on the following 

grounds: 1) pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 18(a) and 20 for asserting unrelated 

claims; 2) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) for failing to exhaust administrative 

remedies; and 3) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failing to state a claim 

upon which relief may be granted.

After carefully reviewing the record, the undersigned grants defendants‟ motion, in part, 

with leave to amend. 

Plaintiff‟s Claims

This action is proceeding on the first amended complaint as to defendants Lee, Williams, 

Peddicord, Chaplain Howard, Chaplain Peaman and Gamberg. (ECF No. 10.) The amended 

Case 2:13-cv-01054-JAM-KJN Document 19 Filed 04/03/14 Page 1 of 4
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

complaint contains three claims for relief. 

In claim one, plaintiff alleges that on August 15, 2012, he arrived at High Desert State 

Prison (“HDSP”) from the California Correctional Institution (“CCI”) with his religious diet card. 

Plaintiff alleges that the card allows plaintiff to receive a vegetarian/vegan religious diet 

throughout the California Department of Corrections (“CDCR”). Plaintiff alleges that after he 

arrived at HDSP, officials would not honor his religious diet card. HDSP prison officials told 

plaintiff that he would have to get a religious diet card from the HDSP chaplain. Plaintiff alleges 

that he made numerous requests to see the chaplains, i.e., defendants Howard and Peaman, but 

was not seen by a chaplain until October 23, 2012, i.e., two months after he arrived at HDSP. 

Plaintiff alleges that during that month, he was served food with meat, which he could not eat. 

Plaintiff alleges that he lost 50 pounds during this time. 

In claim two, plaintiff alleges that after he broke his ankle in June 2011, he was seen by 

orthopedist specialist Dr. Mehul on February 29, 2012. Dr. Mehul recommended that plaintiff 

receive bone stimulation treatment and tibiotalar effuction. When plaintiff arrived at HDSP on 

August 15, 2012, Dr. Pomazal recommended that plaintiff receive physical therapy. Plaintiff 

alleges that defendant Lee denied him physical therapy, crutches, a cane, follow-up treatment and 

x-rays by an orthopedic specialist despite plaintiff‟s pain and difficulty walking. 

In claim three, plaintiff alleges that on March 20, 2012, he was attached by his cellmate, 

inmate Finister, while housed at CCI. Plaintiff alleges that after he was transferred to HDSP, on 

October 24, 2012 he told defendants Williams, Peddicord and Gamberg about the attack by 

inmate Finister and expressed his safety concerns. Plaintiff alleges that defendants Williams, 

Peddicord and Gamberg disregarded plaintiff‟s safety needs when they housed plaintiff and 

Finister on the same yard. Plaintiff alleges that on February 21, 2013, inmate Finister attacked 

him a second time.

Discussion

The undersigned first considers defendants‟ argument that plaintiff‟s claims are not 

properly joined.

////

Case 2:13-cv-01054-JAM-KJN Document 19 Filed 04/03/14 Page 2 of 4
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

Unrelated claims against different defendants must be pursued in multiple lawsuits:

The controlling principle appears in Fed.R.Civ.P. 18(a): „A party 

asserting a claim ... may join, [ ] as independent or as alternate 

claims, as many claims ... as the party has against an opposing 

party.‟ Thus multiple claims against a single party are fine, but 

Claim A against Defendant 1 should not be joined with unrelated 

Claim B against Defendant 2. Unrelated claims against different 

defendants belong in different suits, 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 v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 20(a)(2) (joinder of 

defendants not permitted unless both commonality and same transaction requirements are 

satisfied). 

Defendants argue that the claims raised in plaintiff‟s third amended complaint are not 

properly joined because they involve three separate and distinct events against different 

defendants. Defendants argue that there are no common questions of fact among plaintiff‟s three 

claims. 

The undersigned agrees that plaintiff‟s unrelated claims against different defendants are 

improperly joined. While plaintiff‟s claims all arose at HDSP, they involve different incidents 

and different defendants. Accordingly, defendants‟ motion to dismiss on this ground is granted 

with leave to amend. Plaintiff is directed to choose one of the claims raised in his amended 

complaint on which to proceed. Plaintiff is granted thirty days to file a second amended 

complaint raising only the one claim on which he chooses to proceed. Any amended complaint 

may not change the nature of this suit by alleging new, unrelated claims. George, 507 F.3d at 607 

(no “buckshot” complaints).

Because the undersigned finds that plaintiff‟s claims are not properly joined, there is no 

need to address the remaining arguments raised in defendants‟ motion to dismiss at this time.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants‟ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 

16) is granted; plaintiff is granted thirty days to file a second amended complaint; defendants‟ 

////

Case 2:13-cv-01054-JAM-KJN Document 19 Filed 04/03/14 Page 3 of 4
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

response to the second amended complaint is due twenty-one days thereafter.

Dated: April 3, 2014

On1054.mtd(2)

Case 2:13-cv-01054-JAM-KJN Document 19 Filed 04/03/14 Page 4 of 4