Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01797/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01797-2/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

NATHANIEL MARCUS GANN, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

 vs.

VALLEY STATE PRISON, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:19-cv-01797-GSA-PC

ORDER SEVERING PLAINTIFFS’ 

CLAIMS AND DIRECTING CLERK TO 

OPEN NEW ACTIONS FOR FOURTEEN 

PLAINTIFFS, PURSUANT TO THIS 

ORDER

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE FOR ALL 

FIFTEEN PLAINTIFFS TO EACH FILE 

AN AMENDED COMPLAINT NOT 

EXCEEDING 25 PAGES IN HIS OWN 

CASE, AS INSTRUCTED BY THIS 

ORDER

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE FOR 

FOURTEEN PLAINTIFFS (EXCLUDING 

PLAINTIFF GANN) TO EACH SUBMIT 

AN APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS IN HIS OWN CASE, 

OR PAY THE $400.00 FILING FEE FOR 

HIS OWN CASE

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO SEND 

ALL FIFTEEN PLAINTIFFS A CIVIL 

RIGHTS COMPLAINT FORM

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO SEND 

AN APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS TO ALL 

PLAINTIFFS EXCEPT PLAINTIFF 

NATHANIEL GANN

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Nathaniel Marcus Gann (“Gann”) and fourteen co-plaintiffs1are prisoners

proceeding pro se with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff Gann is 

 

1 The fifteen named plaintiffs are (1) Nathaniel Marcus Gann, (2) Melvin Hiram Thomas, (3) 

David E. Phillips, (4) Jose Reyes, (5) Alton King, (6) John F. Weston, (7) Larry Eugene Boyce, (8) Michael Warsek,

(9) Manfred Schockner, (10) Matthew Wilke Morgan, (11) Thomas Michael Joseph Fox, (12) Jeramie Prier, (13) 

Carlos Rodolfo Marroquin, (14) Oscar Zalaya, and (15) Vladimir R. Ebel. All of the plaintiffs are presently 

incarcerated at Valley State Prison in Chowchilla, California, and all of the plaintiffs signed the Complaint. (ECF 

No. 1 at 4, 28-29.)

Case 1:19-cv-01797-ADA-GSA Document 10 Filed 01/07/20 Page 1 of 5
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

proceeding in forma pauperis. The Complaint commencing this action was filed on December 

26, 2019. (ECF No. 1.)

II. SEVERANCE OF CLAIMS

After reviewing the Complaint, the Court has determined that each plaintiff should 

proceed separately with his own claims. Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides 

that “[o]n motion or on its own, the court may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party ... 

[or] sever any claim against a party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. Courts have broad discretion regarding 

severance. 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. 6, 

2006).

In the Court’s experience an action brought by multiple plaintiffs proceeding pro se in 

which one or more of the plaintiffs are in custody presents procedural problems that cause delay 

and confusion. Delay can arise from the transfer of prisoners to other facilities or institutions,

and the changes in address that occur when prisoners are released from custody. Further, the 

need for all plaintiffs to agree on all filings made in this action and the need for all filings to 

contain the original signatures of all plaintiffs will lead to delay and confusion. Therefore, the 

plaintiffs’ claims shall be severed; plaintiff Gann shall proceed as the sole plaintiff in this action; 

and new actions shall be opened for plaintiffs Thomas, Phillips, Reyes, King, Weston, Boyce, 

Warsek, Schockner, Morgan, Fox, Prier, Marroquin, Zalaya, and Ebel. Gaffney v. Riverboat 

Serv. of Indiana, 451 F.3d 424, 441 (7th Cir. 2006). Each plaintiff shall be solely responsible for 

prosecuting his own action.

Since the claims of the plaintiffs will be severed, each of the plaintiffs, including Plaintiff 

Gann, shall be given thirty days to file, in his own action, an amended complaint not exceeding 

25 pages. Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, leave to amend “shall be 

freely given when justice so requires.” Plaintiffs must each demonstrate in their individual 

amended complaints how the conditions complained of resulted in a deprivation of their 

constitutional rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Each plaintiff must set 

forth “sufficient factual matter . . . to state a claim that is plausible on its face.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

Case 1:19-cv-01797-ADA-GSA Document 10 Filed 01/07/20 Page 2 of 5
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

at 678 (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 

(2007)); Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The mere possibility 

of misconduct falls short of meeting this plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679; Moss, 572 

F.3d at 969. 

Plaintiffs allege in their December 26, 2019 Complaint that they were subjected to

adverse conditions of confinement by the defendants. When filing their amended complaints, 

each plaintiff must allege facts in his own case concerning his individual circumstances. Each 

plaintiff must give sufficient information about what occurred to cause harm to him

PERSONALLY.

Each amended complaint must also specifically state how each defendant is involved. 

Each plaintiff must demonstrate HOW each defendant personally participated in the deprivation 

of his rights. Jones, 297 F.3d at 934 (emphasis added). 

Plaintiffs should note that although they have been given the opportunity to amend, it is 

not for the purposes of adding new claims arising after December 26, 2019. Plaintiffs may not 

change the nature of their suits by adding new, unrelated claims in the amended complaint. 

George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no“buckshot” complaints).

Finally, plaintiffs are advised that Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint be 

complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. As a general rule, an amended 

complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). 

Once an amended complaint is filed, the original complaint no longer serves any function in the 

case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the 

involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. Each amended complaint should be 

clearly and boldly titled “First Amended Complaint,” refer to the appropriate case number, and 

be an original signed under penalty of perjury. 

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff Gann shall proceed as the sole plaintiff in this case, case number 1:19-

cv-01797-GSA-PC;

Case 1:19-cv-01797-ADA-GSA Document 10 Filed 01/07/20 Page 3 of 5
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. The claims of plaintiffs Thomas, Phillips, Reyes, King, Weston, Boyce, Warsek, 

Schockner, Morgan, Fox, Prier, Marroquin, Zalaya, and Ebel are severed from the 

claims of plaintiff Gann;

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to:

a. Open fourteen separate § 1983 civil actions for plaintiffs Thomas, Phillips, 

Reyes, King, Weston, Boyce, Warsek, Schockner, Morgan, Fox, Prier, 

Marroquin, Zalaya, and Ebel; 

b. Assign the new actions to the Magistrate Judge to whom the instant case 

is assigned and 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 actions opened for plaintiffs

Thomas, Phillips, Reyes, King, Weston, Boyce, Warsek, Schockner, 

Morgan, Fox, Prier, Marroquin, Zalaya, and Ebel;

d. Place a copy of the Complaint (ECF No. 1), which was filed on December 

26, 2019 in this action, in the new actions opened for plaintiffs Thomas, 

Phillips, Reyes, King, Weston, Boyce, Warsek, Schockner, Morgan, Fox, 

Prier, Marroquin, Zalaya, and Ebel;

e. Send each of the fifteen plaintiffs (including plaintiff Gann) an endorsed 

copy of the Complaint (ECF No. 1) filed on December 26, 2019, bearing 

the case number assigned to his own individual action;

f. Send each of the fifteen plaintiffs (including plaintiff Gann) a § 1983 civil 

rights complaint form; 

g. Send each of the fourteen plaintiffs Thomas, Phillips, Reyes, King, 

Weston, Boyce, Warsek, Schockner, Morgan, Fox, Prier, Marroquin, 

Zalaya, and Ebel (excluding plaintiff Gann) an application to proceed in 

forma pauperis; 

///

Case 1:19-cv-01797-ADA-GSA Document 10 Filed 01/07/20 Page 4 of 5
5

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. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, the fifteen plaintiffs 

(including plaintiff Gann) shall each file an amended complaint not exceeding 25 

pages and bearing his own case number; 

5. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, the fourteen 

plaintiffs Thomas, Phillips, Reyes, King, Weston, Boyce, Warsek, Schockner, 

Morgan, Fox, Prier, Marroquin, Zalaya, and Ebel (excluding plaintiff Gann) shall 

each pay the $400.00 filing fee for his own action, or complete and submit an 

application to proceed in forma pauperis bearing his own case number;

6. Each amended complaint should be clearly and boldly titled “First Amended 

Complaint” and be an original signed under penalty of perjury; and

7. Failure by a plaintiff to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of the 

plaintiff’s case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 6, 2020 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01797-ADA-GSA Document 10 Filed 01/07/20 Page 5 of 5