Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00950/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00950-2/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

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRIAN SPEARS, No. 2:14-cv-0950-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

ADAM WEINER, et al.,

Defendant.

 /

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s request for reconsideration (Doc. 17) and

request for additional time to file his amended complaint (Doc. 18)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides the court may grant

reconsideration of a final judgment and any order based on, among other things: (1) mistake,

inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which, with

reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered within ten days of entry of judgment; and

(3) fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct of an opposing party. A motion for reconsideration

on any of these grounds must be brought within a reasonable time and no later than one year of

entry of judgment or the order being challenged. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1).

1

Case 2:14-cv-00950-CMK Document 20 Filed 02/12/16 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

Here, plaintiff contends the court mistakenly dismissed some of his claims

without leave to amend where the defects are subject to cure. Specifically, he argues that his

claims against the County of El Dorado, his attorney and the District Attorney are subject to cure,

and that he attempted to state additional facts in supplemental complaints that were stricken. To

the extent plaintiff believes he can cure the defects in those claims, the court will allow a limited

attempt to do so. Based on the information before the court at this point, the court still believes

these claims are not subject to cure, but will allow plaintiff an attempt to plead sufficient facts to

cure the defects noted.

However, as specifically set forth in the order dismissing plaintiff’s original

complaint, he has attempted to bring several unrelated claims against several unrelated

individuals. As the court previously explained, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow a

party to assert “as many claims as it has against an opposing party,” but does not provide for

unrelated claims against several different defendants to be raised on the same action. Fed. R. Civ.

Proc. 18(a). “Thus multiple claims against a single party are fine, but Claim A against Defendant

1 should not be joined with unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2. Unrelated claims against

different defendants belong in different suits.” George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir.

2007). Therefore, while the court will allow plaintiff an opportunity to amend his complaint in

order to state a claim against some of those previously dismissed, he is still limited in proceeding

in this action on only related claims. The varied claims against the jail, related to his

prosecution, against the county, for Due Process violations, and the like are unrelated and must

be separated in to different actions. If plaintiff’s amended complaint includes all of these varied

and unrelated claims, it will again be dismissed. Plaintiff must chose which claims he will

proceed with in this action, and file an amended complaint accordingly. 

Plaintiff further contends that the claims against court employees are subject to

cure under a qualified immunity argument. Judicial immunity extends to the actions of court

personnel when they act as “an integral part of the judicial process.” See Mullis v. U.S.

2

Case 2:14-cv-00950-CMK Document 20 Filed 02/12/16 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

Bankruptcy Court, 828 F.2d 1385, 1390 (9th Cir. 1987). The court found these defendants

benefit from judicial immunity, and were dismissed accordingly. Nothing in the motion changes

the court’s finding as to these defendants. 

Finally, plaintiff requests additional time in which to file his amended complaint. 

Based on the above discussion, this request is granted. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint

within 30 days of the date of this order.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 17) is granted in part;

2. Plaintiff’s motion for additional time to file an amended complaint (Doc.

18) is granted; and

3. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within 30 days of the date of this

order.

DATED: February 12, 2016

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 2:14-cv-00950-CMK Document 20 Filed 02/12/16 Page 3 of 3