Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01478/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01478-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALLEN RICHARDSON, CASE NO. CV-F-05-1422 FVS LJO

Plaintiff, ORDER TO SEVER PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS

AND ON FILING FEE

vs.

ERIC CHRISTIANSON, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

The United States District Court, District of Maryland recently transferred this action to this

Court. Plaintiff Allen Richardson (“plaintiff”) proceeds pro se and filed in this action several “civil

complaints” which this Court construes as two separate legal actions. F.R.Civ.P. 21 provides that

“parties may be dropped or added by order of the court on motion of any party or of its own initiative

at any stage of the action and on such terms as are just,” and “any claim against a party may be severed

and proceeded with separately.” F.R.Civ.P. 21 applies when claims asserted by or against the joined

parties do not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence or do not present a common question of

law or fact. See F.R.Civ.P. 20(a); Pan Am Airways v. United States Dist. Ct., 523 F.2d 1073, 1080 (9th

Cir. 1975). Courts have broad discretion regarding severance. Davis v. Mason County, 927 F.2d 1473,

1479 (9th Cir. 1991).

Plaintiff’s claims against defendants B. Garcia and R. Soltero do not arise out of the same

transaction or occurrence and do not present a common question of law or fact as plaintiff’s claims

Case 1:05-cv-01478-OWW -DLB Document 2 Filed 11/14/05 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

against the other defendants, Eric Christianson, Heather Robinson Daniels and B. O’Neill. As such, the

claims against defendants B. Garcia and R. Soltero should be severed from those against defendants Eric

Christianson, Heather Robinson Daniels and B. O’Neill.

 On the basis of good cause, this Court:

1. ORDERS that plaintiff shall proceed in this case number CV F 05-1422 FVS LJO

against only defendants B. Garcia and R. Soltero;

2. SEVERS plaintiff’s claims against B. Garcia and R. Soltero from plaintiff’s claims

against defendants Eric Christianson, Heather Robinson Daniels and B. O’Neill;

3. DIRECTS this Court’s clerk to:

a. Open a single, separate civil action for plaintiff’s claims against defendants Eric

Christianson, Heather Robinson Daniels and B. O’Neill;

b. Assign the new action to the district judge and magistrate judge assigned to this

case number CV F 05-1422 FVS LJO and to make appropriate adjustment in the

assignment of civil cases to compensate for such assignment;

c. File and docket a copy of this order in the new action for plaintiff’s claims

against defendants Eric Christianson, Heather Robinson Daniels and B. O’Neill;

d. File plaintiff’s “civil complaints” in the new action for plaintiff’s claims against

defendants Eric Christianson, Heather Robinson Daniels and B. O’Neill; and

e. Serve plaintiff an endorsed copy of his “civil complaints” bearing the case

number in the new action for plaintiff’s claims against defendants Eric

Christianson, Heather Robinson Daniels and B. O’Neill; and

4. ORDERS plaintiff, no later than December 7, 2005, to pay the $250 filing fee for this

case number CV F 05-1422 FVS LJO and the new action for plaintiff’s claims against

defendantsEricChristianson, Heather Robinson Daniels and B. O’Neill, or alternatively,

to submit fully completed in forma pauperis applications to demonstrate he is entitled to

proceed without prepayment of fees in this case number CV F 05-1422 FVS LJO and the

new action for plaintiff’s claims against defendants Eric Christianson, Heather Robinson

Daniels and B. O’Neill. 

Case 1:05-cv-01478-OWW -DLB Document 2 Filed 11/14/05 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

Failure to timely comply with this order will result in a recommendation to dismiss this

action. This Court will take no action on plaintiff’s claims until plaintiff complies with this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 17, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

66h44d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01478-OWW -DLB Document 2 Filed 11/14/05 Page 3 of 3