Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00069/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00069-7/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

 CHRISTINE JONES,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:08-cv-01383-LJO-SMS-PC

ORDER RE OBJECTION TO ORDER

SEVERING PLAINTIFFS' CLAIMS

ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR PLAINTIFF

CHRISTINE JONES TO SUBMIT AMENDED

COMPLAINT

THIRTY DAY DEADLINE 

I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On December 5, 2007, plaintiffs Christine Jones and Mark Jones ("co-plaintiffs”), husband

and wife, filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 at the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California. On January 8, 2008, the case was transferred to the Eastern

District of California and opened under case number 1:08-cv-00069-LJO-SMS-PC. On September

16, 2008, the court issued an order severing the co-plaintiffs' claims and directed the Clerk to open

a new action for plaintiff Christine Jones. (Doc. 3.) As a result, each of the co-plaintiffs now

proceeds with a separate action, and Christine Jones now proceeds as sole plaintiff in the instant

action. The court ordered the co-plaintiffs to each file an amended complaint bearing his or her own

case number, within thirty days. On October 17, 2008, plaintiff Mark Jones filed an amended

complaint in his case 1:08-cv-00069-LJO-SMS-PC. On October 20, 2008, the co-plaintiffs filed

objections to the court's severance order of September 16, 2008.

Case 1:08-cv-00069-LJO-MJS Document 18 Filed 11/07/08 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

II. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Motionsto reconsider are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Combs v. Nick Garin

Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C.Cir. 1987); Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983)

(en banc). The Local Rules provide that when filing a motion for reconsideration, a party show that

the “new or different facts or circumstances claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown

upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” Local Rule 78-230(k)(3). 

III. SEVERANCE OF CLAIMS

Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[p]arties 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 “[a]ny claim against a party may be severed and proceeded with

separately.” Courts have broad discretion regarding severance under Rule 21. See Coleman v.

Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1297 (9th Cir. 2000); Maddox v. County of Sacramento, No. 2:06-

cv-0072-GEB-EFB, 2006 WL 3201078, *2 (E.D.Cal. Nov. 3, 2006); See Brunet v. United Gas

Pipeline Co., 15 F.3d 500, 505 (5th Cir.1994) (stating “[t]he trial court has broad discretion to sever

issues”); Williams v. Felker, 2006 WL 495994, at *1 (E.D.Cal. March 1, 2006) (stating that under

Rule 21, “courts have broad discretion regarding severance”); Grigsby v. Kane, 250 F.Supp.2d 453,

456 (M.D.Pa.2003) (“stating “the court has virtually unfettered discretion in determining whether

or not severance is appropriate”). Claims being severed must be “discrete and separate....” Rice v.

Sunrise Express, Inc., 209 F.3d 1008, 1016 (7th Cir.2000). Further, “[f]airness is a critical

consideration in determining whether severance is appropriate[,]” and therefore it must be

determined whether any party would suffer prejudice. Pena v. McArthur, 889 F.Supp. 403, 407

(E.D.Cal.1994).

IV. DISCUSSION

The co-plaintiffs, Mark Jones and Christine Jones, object to the severance of their claims

because it will cause "irreparable damage to their case," "misrepresentation of the facts," and

violation of their Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process. The co-plaintiffs state that "the

INITIAL COMPLAINT stands." 

///

Case 1:08-cv-00069-LJO-MJS Document 18 Filed 11/07/08 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

Here, the co-plaintiffs' complaint contains two separate law suits with discrete and separate

claims. One lawsuit belongs to Mark Jones, inmate at the California Substance Abuse Treatment

Facility at Corcoran (SATF), who claims his due process rights were violated when prison officials

failed to provide him with a "Notice of Visit Termination" form after his wife was denied a visit with

him on September 14, 2007, when officers threw away the Form 602 prison grievances he filed, and

when his visitation rights were suspended without a hearing. The other lawsuit belongs to Christine

Jones, a non-prisoner plaintiff proceeding pro se, who alleges prison officials violated her rights

under the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments when they searched her, seized her property,

failed to properly train employees, and failed to provide her with a "Notice of Visit Termination"

form after she was denied a visit with her husband at Corcoran State Prison on September 14, 2007.

 Each lawsuit stands on its own and can be litigated individually. 

The co-plaintiffs fail to offer any facts demonstrating how severance will result in damage

to the case, misrepresentation of the facts, or violation of her due process rights. There is no

evidence before the court that allowing these two lawsuits to proceed independently will cause

prejudice, unfairness, or injustice. On the contrary, as stated in the court's severance order, allowing

the co-plaintiffs to proceed together in one action, with one plaintiff incarcerated, would almost

certainly present procedural problems causing delay and confusion. The co-plaintiffs have not

demonstrated any new or different facts or circumstances to warrant reconsideration of the court's

decision to sever the cases. 

Plaintiff Christine Jones shall be granted additional time to file an amended complaint in this

action, pursuant to the court’s order of September 16, 2008. Plaintiff is cautioned that her failure

to obey the court’s order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff Christine Jones is GRANTED an extension of time in which to file an

amended complaint, pursuant to the court’s order of September 16, 2008;

2. Within thirty days of the date of service of this order, plaintiff Christine Jones shall

file an amended complaint in this action, bearing her case number 1:08-cv-01383-

LJO-SMS-PC; and

Case 1:08-cv-00069-LJO-MJS Document 18 Filed 11/07/08 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

3. The Clerk is DIRECTED to file, docket, and serve a copy of this order in case 1:08-

cv-00069-LJO-SMS-PC.; and

4. Plaintiff's failure to comply with the court’s order will result in a recommendation

that this action be dismissed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 6, 2008 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00069-LJO-MJS Document 18 Filed 11/07/08 Page 4 of 4