Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00904/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00904-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LE ROI JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C-07-0904 MMC

ORDER DISMISSING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE CLAIMS AGAINST

CONTRA COSTA DEFENDANTS

On February 13, 2007, plaintiff Le Roi Johnson filed his initial complaint in the

above-titled action, alleging claims arising out of plaintiff’s arrest by El Cerrito Police

Officers William Zenk (“Zenk”) and Corporal Hartung (“Hartung”) on January 13, 2006. 

Thereafter, the Court dismissed with prejudice four of the defendants named therein, (see

Orders filed April 30, 2007, August 10, 2007, and August 23, 2007), and subsequently

granted plaintiff leave to amend his complaint to name two individuals not properly named

in the complaint, specifically, Zenk and Hartung, (see Order filed October 30, 2007). Now

before the Court is plaintiff’s amended complaint filed February 4, 2008. 

In his amended complaint, plaintiff names Zenk and Hartung as defendants, along

with Certified Towing, a defendant named in the original complaint. Additionally, plaintiff realleges his claims against three defendants previously dismissed with prejudice from the

instant action, specifically, Contra Costa County, City of El Cerrito, and El Cerrito Police

Case 3:07-cv-00904-MMC Document 44 Filed 02/13/08 Page 1 of 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

2

Department. (See Orders filed April 30, 2007, August 10, 2007, and August 23, 2007.) In

light of such dismissal, and for the reasons stated in the Court’s previous orders, said

defendants remain dismissed. 

Further, plaintiff names four new defendants, identified by plaintiff as Contra Costa

Sheriff’s Office, Contra Costa District Attorneys Office, Contra Costa Main Detention

Facility Law Librarian, (collectively, “Contra Costa defendants”), and Judge Treat. 

Plaintiff’s attempted joinder of the Contra Costa defendants is improper. The

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that multiple defendants may be joined in a single

action “if there is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative, any right to

relief in respect of or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of

transactions or occurrences and if any question of law or fact common to all defendants will

arise in the action.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a). As relevant to the instant action, “Rule

20(a) imposes two specific requirements for the permissive joinder of parties: (1) a right to

relief must be asserted . . . against [ ] each . . . defendant relating to or arising out of the

same transaction or occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences; and (2) some

question of law or fact common to all parties must arise in the action.” See Desert Empire

Bank v. Insurance Co. of North America, 623 F.2d 1371, 1375 (9th Cir. 1980). Here, the

claims asserted against the Contra Costa defendants concern events occurring in

connection with court proceedings following plaintiff’s arrest, and plaintiff’s pre-trial and

post-trial confinement; such claims do not relate to or arise out of the same transaction or

occurrence as the claims asserted against Zenk and Hartung. 

Accordingly, and for the reasons stated, plaintiff’s claims against the Contra Costa

defendants are hereby DISMISSED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 13, 2008 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00904-MMC Document 44 Filed 02/13/08 Page 2 of 2