Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01515/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01515-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 560
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement
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

JASON TAYLOR, et al.,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

NORM KRAMER, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:14-cv-00939-AWI-GSA-PC

ORDER SEVERING PLAINTIFFS=

CLAIMS, AND DIRECTING CLERK=S 

OFFICE TO OPEN NEW ACTIONS FOR 

PLAINTIFFS GARIBAY, KITE, 

MARSHALL, MOUZON, NGUYEN, 

OLIVER, PANIAGUA, REDDING, RONJE, 

RUBIO, SHARKEY, STELL, SUMAHIT, 

WARREN, AND WEATHINGTON 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

CONSIDER NEW EVIDENCE

(Doc. 40.)

THIRTY DAY DEADLINE FOR ALL 

SIXTEEN PLAINTIFFS TO EACH FILE AN

AMENDED COMPLAINT IN HIS OWN 

CASE, AS INSTRUCTED BY THIS ORDER

 

I. BACKGROUND

Sixteen plaintiffs, Jason Taylor, John S. Garibay, Everett Kite, Oscar Marshall, 

Alfonson Mouzon, Khanh Nguyen, Jaffar Oliver, Carlos Paniagua, Billy Ray Redding, Edward 

Ronje, Jorge L. Rubio, Dennis Sharkey, Manuel Stell, Frank Sumahit, Andrew Warren, and 

Anthony Weathington (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), are civil detainees proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs filed the 

Complaint commencing this action on June 18, 2014. (Doc. 1.)

Case 1:14-cv-01515-AWI-GSA Document 1 Filed 09/26/14 Page 1 of 7
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

II. SEVERANCE OF CLAIMS

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

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

provides that A[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 detainees to other facilities or 

institutions, and the changes in address that occur when detainees 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, Plaintiffs= claims shall be severed; plaintiff Taylor shall proceed as the sole plaintiff 

in this action; and new actions shall be opened for plaintiffs Garibay, Kite, Marshall, Mouzon, 

Nguyen, Oliver, Paniagua, Redding, Ronje, Rubio, Sharkey, Stell, Sumahit, Warren, and 

Weathington. 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 sixteen Plaintiffs shall be 

given thirty days to file, in his own action, an amended complaint. 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 Asufficient factual matter . 

. . to >state a claim that is plausible on its face.=@ Iqbal, 556 U.S. 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 

Case 1:14-cv-01515-AWI-GSA Document 1 Filed 09/26/14 Page 2 of 7
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

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 June 18, 2014 Complaint that they were placed at risk of 

contracting the disease known as Valley Fever. While none of the Plaintiffs has yet contracted 

Valley Fever, Plaintiffs allege that they are at particular risk of the disease because they face 

certain risk factors. Plaintiffs also allege that they are from various ethnic backgrounds. When 

filing their amended complaints, each Plaintiff must allege facts concerning his own individual 

circumstances. Each Plaintiff must give sufficient information about his individual risk factors

of contracting Valley Fever, such as his age, his ethnic background, how long he has been 

housed at Coalinga State Hospital, and on what basis he claims he has an increased risk.

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

Each Plaintiff must demonstrate that 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 June 18, 2014. 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 AFirst Amended Complaint,@ refer to the 

appropriate case number, and be an original signed under penalty of perjury. 

///

///

III. MOTION TO CONSIDER NEW EVIDENCE

Case 1:14-cv-01515-AWI-GSA Document 1 Filed 09/26/14 Page 3 of 7
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

On August 22, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a motion for the court to consider newly discovered 

evidence. (Doc. 40.) Plaintiffs submitted a copy of the new evidence as an exhibit to their 

motion. (Exhibit 1, Doc. 40 at 7.)

In light of the fact that Plaintiffs are now required to file an amended complaint in their

own cases, Plaintiffs’ motion for consideration of the new evidence shall be denied. If 

Plaintiffs wish the court to consider the new evidence in their individual cases, they must each 

include it in their amended complaints. However, Plaintiffs are advised that while exhibits to 

the complaint are permissible, Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c), they are not necessary in the federal 

system of notice pleading, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The Court strongly suggests to Plaintiffs that 

exhibits should not be submitted where (1) they serve only to confuse the record and burden the 

Court, or (2) they are intended as future evidence. If a Plaintiff’s action reaches a juncture at 

which the submission of evidence is appropriate and necessary (e.g., summary judgment or 

trial), the Plaintiff will have the opportunity at that time to submit his evidence.

Therefore, Plaintiffs’ motion for consideration of new evidence, filed on August 22, 

2014 shall be denied.

IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff Taylor shall proceed as the sole plaintiff in case number 1:14-cv00939-GSA-PC;

2. The claims of Plaintiffs Garibay, Kite, Marshall, Mouzon, Nguyen, Oliver, 

Paniagua, Redding, Ronje, Rubio, Sharkey, Stell, Sumahit, Warren, and 

Weathington are severed from the claims of Plaintiff Taylor;

///

///

///

///

///

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to:

Case 1:14-cv-01515-AWI-GSA Document 1 Filed 09/26/14 Page 4 of 7
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

a. Open fifteen separate ' 1983 civil actions for these Plaintiffs:

(1) John S. Garibay

C-000794-8

Coalinga State Hospital

P.O. Box 5003

Coalinga, CA 93210-5003

(2) Everett Kite

C-000468-9

Coalinga State Hospital

P.O. Box 5003

Coalinga, CA 93210-5003

(3) Oscar Marshall 

C-000545-4

Coalinga State Hospital

P.O. Box 5003

Coalinga, CA 93210-5003

(4) Alfonson Mouzon

C-000473-9

Coalinga State Hospital

P.O. Box 5003

Coalinga, CA 93210-5003

(5) Khanh Nguyen 

C-000167-7

Coalinga State Hospital

P.O. Box 5003

Coalinga, CA 93210-5003

(6) Jaffar Oliver 

C-001167-2

Coalinga State Hospital

P.O. Box 5003

Coalinga, CA 93210-5003

(7) Carlos Paniagua 

C-000090-1

Coalinga State Hospital

P.O. Box 5003

Coalinga, CA 93210-5003

(8) Billy Ray Redding 

C-000225-3

Coalinga State Hospital

P.O. Box 5003

Coalinga, CA 93210-5003

///

(9) Edward Ronje 

Case 1:14-cv-01515-AWI-GSA Document 1 Filed 09/26/14 Page 5 of 7
6

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

C-000353-3

Coalinga State Hospital

P.O. Box 5003

Coalinga, CA 93210-5003

(10) Jorge L. Rubio 

C-000413-5

Coalinga State Hospital

P.O. Box 5003

Coalinga, CA 93210-5003

(11) Dennis Sharkey 

C-000764-1

Coalinga State Hospital

P.O. Box 5003

Coalinga, CA 93210-5003

(12) Manuel Stell 

C-000951-4

Coalinga State Hospital

P.O. Box 5003

Coalinga, CA 93210-5003

(13) Frank Sumahit 

C-000065-3

Coalinga State Hospital

P.O. Box 5003

Coalinga, CA 93210-5003

(14) Andrew Warren 

C-000143-8

Coalinga State Hospital

P.O. Box 5003

Coalinga, CA 93210-5003

(15) Anthony Weathington 

C-000194-1

Coalinga State Hospital

P.O. Box 5003

Coalinga, CA 93210-5003

b. Assign the new actions to the U.S. District Judge and 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 Garibay, Kite, Marshall, Mouzon, Nguyen, Oliver, Paniagua, 

Redding, Ronje, Rubio, Sharkey, Stell, Sumahit, Warren, and 

Weathington;

Case 1:14-cv-01515-AWI-GSA Document 1 Filed 09/26/14 Page 6 of 7
7

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

d. Place a copy of the Complaint (Doc. 1), which was filed on June 18, 

2014 in the instant action, in the new actions opened for Plaintiffs

Garibay, Kite, Marshall, Mouzon, Nguyen, Oliver, Paniagua, Redding, 

Ronje, Rubio, Sharkey, Stell, Sumahit, Warren, and Weathington;

e. Place a copy of the court’s Order granting Plaintiffs’ applications to 

proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 20), which was filed on July 10, 2014 in 

the instant action, in the new actions opened for Plaintiffs Garibay, Kite, 

Marshall, Mouzon, Nguyen, Oliver, Paniagua, Redding, Ronje, Rubio, 

Sharkey, Stell, Sumahit, Warren, and Weathington;

f. Send each of the sixteen Plaintiffs an endorsed copy of the Complaint 

(Doc. 1), filed on June 18, 2014, bearing the case number assigned to his 

own individual action; and

g. Send each of the sixteen Plaintiffs a ' 1983 civil rights complaint form; 

6. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, the sixteen

Plaintiffs shall each file an amended complaint bearing his own case number; 

7. Each amended complaint should be clearly and boldly titled AFirst Amended 

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

8. Plaintiffs’ motion for the court to consider newly discovered evidence, filed on 

August 22, 2014, is DENIED; and

9. Failure by a Plaintiff to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of the 

Plaintiff’s case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 25, 2014 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01515-AWI-GSA Document 1 Filed 09/26/14 Page 7 of 7