Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01422/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01422-8/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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Hosam Kaddoura (“Plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 29, 2014, the 

Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that this action proceed on Plaintiff’s second 

amended complaint against Defendants Calhoun and Darbi for failure to protect and against Defendant 

Calhoun for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment, 

but that all other remaining claims and defendants be dismissed as improperly joined in this action 

under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 18 and 20.1 The Findings and Recommendations were served 

on Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty days after service. 

 

1

By separate order, the Magistrate Judge directed Plaintiff to submit service documents for Defendants Calhoun 

and Darbi. (ECF No. 40.) 

HOSAM KADDOURA,

 Plaintiff,

v.

MATTHEW CATE, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:11-cv-01422-LJO-BAM (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING 

DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN CLAIMS AND 

DEFENDANTS

(ECF Nos. 38, 39)

Case 1:11-cv-01422-LJO-BAM Document 42 Filed 03/10/14 Page 1 of 3
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

(ECF No. 39.) On February 7, 2014, Plaintiff filed a request for reconsideration of the Findings and 

Recommendations, which the Court construes as objections. (ECF No. 41.) 

Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s determination that further leave to amend should not 

be granted. (ECF No. 39.) Plaintiff requests that the Court allow him an additional opportunity to 

amend his complaint. Plaintiff relies on the liberal amendment standard of Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 15 and related case law to support his request. Plaintiff believes that if he hires an attorney, 

then he will be able to cure the deficiencies identified by the Magistrate Judge.

In this instance, the Magistrate Judge determined that Plaintiff was attempting to pursue claims 

against multiple defendants for different incidents occurring at different times in violation of Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure 18 and 20. The Magistrate Judge noted that the Court previously had 

determined that this action should proceed only on those claims properly joined against Defendant 

Calhoun and that Defendants Bicknell, Bergthold, Unknown Doe Officer and Nurse Doe had been 

dismissed from the action. (ECF Nos. 23, 25, and 39, p. 5.) Despite the prior orders, the Magistrate 

Judge found that Plaintiff continued in his efforts to pursue improperly joined and dismissed claims 

against Defendants Bicknell, Bergthold, Unknown Doe Officer and Nurse Doe, along with his claims 

against Defendants Calhoun and Darbi. The Magistrate Judge therefore denied Plaintiff further leave 

to amend. (ECF No. 39, p. 5.) 

The Court has considered Plaintiff’s request for further amendment. However, Plaintiff’s 

improper joinder of claims and defendants cannot be cured by amendment. As such, further leave to 

amend is not warranted in this action. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (district 

court should grant leave to amend unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by 

the allegation of other facts.) 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de 

novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s objections,

the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 

analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, issued on January 29, 2014, are adopted in full;

Case 1:11-cv-01422-LJO-BAM Document 42 Filed 03/10/14 Page 2 of 3
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. This action shall proceed on Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Calhoun and Darbi 

for failure to protect and against Defendant Calhoun for deliberate indifference to serious medical 

needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment; 

3. All other claims and defendants are dismissed as improperly joined in this action under 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 18 and 20; and

4. This action is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings consistent 

with this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 10, 2014 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01422-LJO-BAM Document 42 Filed 03/10/14 Page 3 of 3