Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01292/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01292-3/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

Plaintiff David Estrada is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. 

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for joinder, filed April 8, 2016. Plaintiff seeks 

to join claims with case number 1:15-cv-1335 EPG David Estrada v. Macias, et.al., which is pending 

statutory screening review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff contends that with respect to Defendant 

Dr. J. Wang he “will show that various failures to provide him treatment were part of the same series 

of transactions or occurrences as required by Rule 20(a).” (ECF No. 24, Mot. at 1-2.) 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 governs permissive joinder, and identifies two prerequisites 

for the joinder of defendants: (1) a right to relief must be asserted against the defendants jointly, 

severally or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence or 

series of transactions or occurrences; and (2) some question of law or fact common to all defendants 

will arise. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a). District courts retain broad discretion in applying Rule 20. See

DAVID ESTRADA,

 Plaintiff,

v.

TERESA MACIS, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-001292-AWI-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR JOINDER

[ECF No. 24] 

Case 1:15-cv-01292-AWI-SAB Document 35 Filed 05/05/16 Page 1 of 2
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

Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1296-1297 (9th Cir. 2000) (whether severance is 

appropriate under Rule 20 lies within the sound discretion of the trial court); Desert Empire Bank v. 

Insurance Co. of North America, 623 F.2d 1371, 1375 (9th Cir. 1980) (even if the requirements of 

Rule 20 are satisfied, courts must examine other relevant factors to determine whether permissive 

joinder will comport with principles of fundamental fairness). 

At this juncture there is no basis to join this action with case number 1:15-cv-1335 EPG David 

Estrada v. Macias, et.al., as Plaintiff fails to make any showing that trying Plaintiff’s claims together 

will produce a common answer to the crucial issues presented in the instant action. Accordingly, 

Plaintiff’s motion for joinder is DENIED, without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 5, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01292-AWI-SAB Document 35 Filed 05/05/16 Page 2 of 2