Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00384/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00384-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SRIKANTH TANGIRALA,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-0384 FCD GGH PS

vs.

JOHN E. POTTER, POSTMASTER

GENERAL, UNITED STATES POSTAL ORDER

SERVICE, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Presently pending before this court is defendants’ motion for summary judgment,

filed February 14, 2008, and scheduled for hearing March 13, 2008. 

Due to this court’s authorization to plaintiff to file his papers electronically (see

Order filed March 13, 2007), plaintiff’s opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment

was due Thursday, February 28, 2008. See E. D. Cal. L. R. 78-230(c). Plaintiff filed his

opposition one day late, on Friday, February 29, 2008. (Moreover, notwithstanding the parties’

agreement to accept electronic service as “personal service thereof,” see Docket No. 81, service

of plaintiff’s opposition on defendants was also one day late. Id.)

Pursuant to the local rules, “No party will be entitled to be heard in opposition to a

motion at oral arguments if written opposition to the motion has not been timely filed by that

Case 2:06-cv-00384-FCD-GGH Document 87 Filed 02/29/08 Page 1 of 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

 Plaintiff wrote: “I the plaintiff filed the motion requesting to join the parties to the case 1

set for the past date in error. If it is possible, please kindly consider it as a request to the court as

to join the parties to the case instead of a motion, I request this because today is the last day to

bring in a law suit against such defendants. I the plaintiff will eventually file the opposition to the

other motions as required.” Plaintiff’s February 28, 2008 e-mail to chambers.

2

party.” E. D. Cal. L. R. 78-230(c). Accordingly, the court will vacate the hearing scheduled on

defendants’ motion for summary judgment and decide the matter based on the parties’ respective

briefing.

An additional matter warrants this court’s attention. On February 28, 2008,

plaintiff emailed the undersigned’s courtroom clerk to alert this chambers to plaintiff’s filing of a

motion for joinder on February 27, 2008. That motion, filed electronically by plaintiff, was

initially described by him pursuant to his electronic filing as a motion to dismiss, motion for

judgment, motion for protective order, motion for temporary restraining order, and motion to

strike. The court directed the Clerk of Court to denominate plaintiff’s filing as a motion for

joinder, consistent with its contents. This change was consistent with plaintiff’s email to

chambers, wherein plaintiff characterized the matter as a request for joinder. Accordingly, all 1

other matters are deemed withdrawn.

Plaintiff has now included these matters in his opposition to defendants’ motion

for summary judgment. 

Plaintiff seeks to join parties previously dismissed from this action. He has

submitted four “right to sue” notices issued by the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department

of Justice. Each provides that plaintiff may bring a civil action within 90 days due to the

inability of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) to timely reach the

merits of plaintiff’s complaints filed, respectively, against San Quentin Prison (“right to sue”

notice dated November 27, 2007), California Department of Personnel Administration (notice

dated November 29, 2007), Department of Managed Health Care of California (notice dated

December 31, 2007), Medical Board of California (notice dated December 31, 2007). 

Case 2:06-cv-00384-FCD-GGH Document 87 Filed 02/29/08 Page 2 of 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

 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a), which provides in pertinent part: “(1) A person who is 2

subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the court of subject-matter

jurisdiction must be joined as a party if: (A) in that person's absence, the court cannot accord

complete relief among existing parties; or (B) that person claims an interest relating to the subject

of the action and is so situated that disposing of the action in the person's absence may: (i) as a

practical matter impair or impede the person's ability to protect the interest; or (ii) leave an

existing party subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent

obligations because of the interest.”

3

Accordingly, plaintiff’s first deadline for filing a civil action, now passed, was

Monday, February 25, 2008 (San Quentin Prison), although plaintiff construed it to be February

27, 2008. The remaining deadlines were February 27, 2008 (Dept. of Personnel Administration),

and remain March 30, 2008 (Dept. Managed Health Care and Medical Board).

All of these parties, with the exception of the California Department of Personnel

Administration (which was never named in this action), were previously dismissed from this

action. Plaintiff was accorded several opportunities to amend his complaint and this court was

tasked with assessing the merits of plaintiff’s contentions against multiple defendants. Following

the filing of plaintiff’s proposed third amended complaint, this court recommended that this

action proceed against only the federal defendants. See Findings and Recommendations filed

March 9, 2007. This recommendation was adopted by the District Judge on April 25, 2007. As

set forth in this court’s scheduling order filed May 17, 2007, “[n]o further joinder of parties or

amendments to pleadings is permitted except with leave of court, good cause having been

shown.” 

Plaintiff argues that the above-named parties should be joined to this action based

on the content of his new EEOC filings, wherein plaintiff described these parties’ alleged

“harassment and discriminative practices.” This argument is unavailing. Plaintiff’s declarations

in support of the new filings are very general in nature and, on their face, indistinguishable from

the claims against these parties presented and dismissed in this action. Plaintiff fails to

demonstrate good cause for reconsidering the courts’ dismissal orders or for naming the

Department of Personnel Administration as a necessary party to this action. 

2

Case 2:06-cv-00384-FCD-GGH Document 87 Filed 02/29/08 Page 3 of 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

 “Plaintiff states that he lives hundreds of miles from his Sacramento mailing 3

address, receives his mail only once every ten days, has been instructed medically to refrain from

driving long distances and for continuous periods, and is computer literate and familiar with the

court’s electronic case management system.” Order filed March 13, 2007, at 1.

4

If, on the other hand, plaintiff’s new “right to sue” notices are based on

complaints alleging new discriminatory practices, plaintiff should, to the extent he can timely do

so, file a separate civil action. Whether such cases would require consolidation with the instant

case (see Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)) is a matter not presently before the court. 

Accordingly, the court will deny plaintiff’s request for joinder. 

Some additional comments are warranted. Plaintiff was authorized by this court

to file his papers electronically, based on his stated hardships, but was specifically warned that 3

“the court will carefully monitor plaintiff’s filings to assess their reasonableness. Should the

court discern any unreasonably expansive filings, either in number or volume, this order will be

vacated.” Order filed March 13, 2007, at 2. This warning was followed by another filed August

13, 2007, which provided in pertinent part: 

Plaintiff is hereby ordered to cease emailing chambers or copying to chambers

emails sent to opposing counsel. The court will not consider any material sent to

it via email, nor any material that is filed extraneous to proceedings pending

before the court. Further inclusion of court personnel and chambers in plaintiff’s

email communications with opposing counsel, or further nonsubstantive emails

directed to chambers shall result in the imposition of sanctions, either monetary or

by the exclusion of evidence, or both. See E. D. Cal. Local Rule11-110 (“Failure

of . . . a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be

grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute

or Rule or within the inherent power of the court”). This directive is effective

immediately.

Plaintiff is again directed to refrain from abusing the electronic filing and

chambers’ email systems. No further briefing is required, nor communication warranted, from

plaintiff until this court has ruled on defendants’ motion for summary judgment. 

/ / / /

/ / / /

/ / / /

Case 2:06-cv-00384-FCD-GGH Document 87 Filed 02/29/08 Page 4 of 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

5

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The March 13, 2008 hearing on defendants’ motion for summary judgment

(filed February 14, 2008, Docket No. 83) is vacated; the matter is submitted for decision on the

papers; and

2. Plaintiff’s February 27, 2008 request for joinder of parties (Docket No. 84) is

denied; all other matters set forth in the request are deemed withdrawn.

DATED: 02/29/08

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

__________________________________

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH5:Tang0384.ord

Case 2:06-cv-00384-FCD-GGH Document 87 Filed 02/29/08 Page 5 of 5