Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00332/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00332-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TYLO JEROME FELIX, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

S. DOUGHERTY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:21-cv-01472-JLT-SKO (PC)

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S 

LODGED AMENDED COMPLAINT

(Doc. 28)

ORDER SEVERING CERTAIN CLAIMS 

AND DEFENDANTS AND DIRECTING 

CLERK OF THE COURT TO OPEN NEW 

ACTION

Plaintiff Tylo Jerome Felix, Jr., is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 

action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed his original complaint on October 1, 2021. (Doc. 1.) The Court issued its 

First Screening Order on February 3, 2023. (Doc. 16.) The Court found Plaintiff’s complaint 

stated excessive force claims against Defendants Cazores, Smotherman, Diaz, Velasquez and 

Arreazola in violation of the Eighth Amendment, but the remaining claims against any Defendant 

were not cognizable. (Id. at 9.) On May 9, 2023, Plaintiff timely filed a first amended complaint. 

(Doc. 21.) 

On January 31, 2024, the Court issued its Second Screening Order. (Doc. 25.) The Court 

found Plaintiff’s first amended complaint violates Rules 18 and 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Case 1:24-cv-00332-JLT-SKO Document 1 Filed 03/20/24 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

Procedure. (Id. at 4-6.) The Court also found Plaintiff plausibly alleged an Eighth Amendment 

deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim against Defendant Dougherty and Eighth 

Amendment excessive force claims against Defendants Cazores, Smotherman, Diaz, Velasquez 

and Arreazola. (Id. at 6-13.) Plaintiff was directed to do one of the following within 21 days of 

the date of the order: (1) file a second amended complaint; or (2) file a notice that he did not wish 

to file a second amended complaint and instead wished to either (a) proceed only on his Eighth 

Amendment excessive force claims against Defendant Cazores, Smotherman, Diaz, Velasquez 

and Arreazola, or (b) to proceed only on his Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious 

medical needs claim against Defendant Dougherty; or (3) file a notice of voluntary dismissal. (Id. 

at 14.) On February 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Clarification of order and 21-day

extension.” (Doc. 26.) 

On February 28, 2024, the Court issued its Order Regarding Plaintiff’s Request For 

Clarification And Extension Of Time Within Which To Respond To The Court’s Second 

Screening Order. (Doc. 27.) The Court discussed the applicability of Rules 18 and 20 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (id. at 3-5), and granted Plaintiff a 21-day extension of time (id. 

at 6). 

On March 18, 2024, Plaintiff’s amended complaint was lodged with the Court. (Doc. 28.) 

The lodged document consists of an amended form complaint bearing the instant case number 

asserting claims against a previously named defendant and three newly named defendants (id. at 

1-8), and an additional form complaint bearing no case number and asserting claims against five 

previously named defendants in this action (id. at 9-16). 

II. DISCUSSION

Under Rule 20(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the district court may sever 

claims or parties in order to avoid prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(b). Courts have also exercised 

their discretion to sever where “[i]nstead of making the resolution of [the] case more efficient ... 

joinder would instead confuse and complicate the issues for all parties involved.” Rodriguez v. 

Tilton, No. 2:08-cv-1028 GEB AC P, 2013 WL 1163796, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2013) 

(quoting Wynn v. Nat'l Broad. Co., 234 F. Supp. 2d 1067, 1088 (C.D. Cal. 2002) [finding that 

Case 1:24-cv-00332-JLT-SKO Document 1 Filed 03/20/24 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

even where Rule 20 requirements for joinder are satisfied, the court may exercise its discretion 

“to sever for at least two reasons: (1) to prevent jury confusion and judicial inefficiency, and (2) 

to prevent unfair prejudice to the [defendants]”] citing Coleman [v. Quaker Oats Company, 232 

F.3d 1271, 1296 (9th Cir. 2000)]”). 

As stated in the Second Screening Order and the February 28, 2024 clarification order, the 

claims presented in Plaintiff’s first amended complaint cannot proceed in the same action. (See

Doc. 25 at 4-6 & Doc. 27 at 3-5.) The documents lodged with the Court on March 18, 2024,

reveal that Plaintiff seeks to comply with the Court’s Second Screening Order by submitting an 

amended complaint alleging claims against certain defendants in this action, and by submitting 

another complaint asserting other claims against other defendants to be filed in a new separate 

action. Therefore, the Court will order that the amended complaint lodged March 18, 2024, 

bearing the instant case number, naming S. Dougherty, J. Trovao, C. Bencito, and G. Ravijot as 

defendants, be filed in this action and designated Plaintiff’s second amended complaint. The 

Court will also order that the separate complaint lodged March 18, 2024, naming C. Cazores, J. 

Smotherman, D. Diaz, A. Velasquez and Arreazola, as defendants, be severed from this action 

and filed as a new action, to be assigned to the same district and magistrate judges and designated 

as the original complaint in the new action. Finally, for that new action to which a new case 

number will be assigned, Plaintiff will be directed to submit and application to proceed in forma 

pauperis, or the required filing fee of $405, within 30 days of the date of this order. 

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to file pages 1 through 8 of the document lodged 

March 18, 2024 (Doc. 28) as Plaintiff’s second amended complaint in this action; 

2. Plaintiff’s claims against previously named defendants C. Cazores, J. Smotherman, D. 

Diaz, A. Velasquez, and Arreazola are SEVERED from this action; 

3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to file pages 9 through 16 of the document lodged 

March 18, 2024 (Doc. 28) as the original complaint in a separate and new action, to be 

assigned to the same district and magistrate judges. The named defendants in the new 

Case 1:24-cv-00332-JLT-SKO Document 1 Filed 03/20/24 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

action are S. Dougherty, J. Trovao, C. Bencito, and G. Ravijot; 

4. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to modify the docket for this action to reflect only 

the following individuals as defendants in this action in accordance with the nowdesignated second amended complaint:

a. S. Dougherty

b. J. Trovao

c. C. Bencito

d. G. Ravijot

5. The following individuals are DISMISSED because Plaintiff’s now-designated second 

amended complaint does not name them as defendants in this action1:

a. E. McDaniels

b. C. Bell

c. S. Gates

6. Plaintiff is advised the Court will screen the now-designated second amended complaint 

in this action in due course; and

7. Plaintiff SHALL submit either an application to proceed in forma pauperis or the required 

$405 filing fee in the new action, to be assigned a new case number, within 30 days of the 

date of service of this order. Once either the application to proceed in forma pauperis has 

been granted or the $405 filing fee has been paid in the new action, the complaint will be 

screened in due course.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 20, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1 As the Court found in its Second Screening Order, Plaintiff failed to state any cognizable claims against Defendants 

McDaniels, Bell or Gates, and permitting amendment of any claims asserted against these defendants was futile. (See

Doc. 25 at 10-11.) 

Case 1:24-cv-00332-JLT-SKO Document 1 Filed 03/20/24 Page 4 of 4