Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02309/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02309-8/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

 These defendants also ask that defendant Lane be dismissed. However, since the filing 1

of defendants’ motion, Lane has been dismissed by stipulation.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SEAN NICHOLAS COYLE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2309 LKK KJM P

vs.

CHARLOTTE HARRIS-WHITE, et al., ORDER AND

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an action for violation of civil

rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants Lane, Godman, Mitchell, Anderson, Tillman and

Burgess have filed a motion to sever in part and stay in part.

1

Defendants ask that claims I, II and III appearing in plaintiff’s complaint be

severed from one another. None of the defendants bringing the motion before the court are

defendants in claim I. In claim I, plaintiff alleges defendants Harris-White and Steber denied

plaintiff adequate medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment between November 2003

and May 2004 while plaintiff was housed in the El Dorado County Jail. Compl. at 4-18. The

court construes claim II to state a claim upon which relief may be granted against defendants

Case 2:04-cv-02309-LKK -KJM Document 63 Filed 01/19/07 Page 1 of 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

2

Godman and Tillman, for the use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment based

on an incident that occurred at the El Dorado County Jail on January 12, 2004. Compl. at 38-43.

The court construes claim III to state claims upon which relief may be granted against defendants

Mitchell, Anderson and Burgess, for the use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth

Amendment based on an incident that occurred at the El Dorado County Jail on March 27, 2004. 

Compl. at 44-52. Plaintiff does not object to severing claim I from claims II and III, but does

object to proceeding with three different actions. 

Under Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court may add or drop

parties on such terms as are just; any claim against a party may be severed and proceed

separately. The court has broad discretion in determining whether to order severance. Fed. R.

Civ. P. 21 (“. . . Parties may be dropped or added by order of the court on motion of any party or

of its own initiative at any stage of the action and on such terms as are just. . . .”); Brunet v.

United Gas Pipeline Co., 15 F.3d 500, 505 (5thCir. 1994). “Fairness is a critical consideration in

determining whether severance is appropriate.” Pena v. McArthur, 889 F. Supp. 403, 407 (E.D.

Cal. 1994) (relying on United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 724 (1966)). 

Because the parties agree to a severance of claim I from claims II and III, and

there do not appear to be any problems with such a severance from the court’s perspective,

claims II and III will be severed from this action. 

Plaintiff asserts several reasons for not severing claim II from claim III. Opp’n at

3:18-5:10. However, none are availing. The claims involve different incidents, occurring on

different days, with different defendants. While the claims both involve the use of excessive

force by prison employees upon a prisoner, this fact alone does not justify the claim II and III

defendants being required to participate, even if passively, in the litigation of the other claim in

which they are not named. Moreover, to require that all defendants participate in the same trial,

if the case goes to trial, would prejudice any one defendant due to the potential for a finding of

guilt by association. See Wynn v. National Broadcasting Co., Inc., 234 F. Supp. 2d 1067, 1089

Case 2:04-cv-02309-LKK -KJM Document 63 Filed 01/19/07 Page 2 of 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

3

(C. D. Cal. 2002). The court thus will order that this action proceed from this point as three

separate actions.

Finally, with regard to claims II and III, defendants ask that this court either

abstain from proceeding on those claims under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), or stay the

proceedings until state court criminal proceedings against plaintiff arising from the incidents at

issue in claims II and III are complete. Plaintiff agrees that the claims II and III should be stayed.

In the interest of judicial economy, the court will recommend that claims II and III

be stayed. It appears at least possible that some of the issues dispositive of claims II and III could

be resolved in the state court criminal proceeding, thereby allowing a party to assert res judicata

or collateral estoppel once a stay is lifted here. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The July 14, 2006 motion for severance filed by defendants Lane, Godman,

Mitchell, Anderson, Tillman and Burgess is granted. 

2. This action will proceed on Claim I in plaintiff’s complaint, against defendants

Harris-White, Cooper and Steber.

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to open two new files, which shall be

assigned to the same district judge and magistrate judge as this action, with adjustment in the

assignment of civil cases as appropriate. In one action, the defendants shall be identified as

defendants Godman and Tillman and that action will proceed on claim II identified in plaintiff’s

complaint. In the other, the defendants shall be identified as defendants Mitchell, Anderson and

Burgess and that action will proceed on claim III identified in plaintiff’s complaint. The clerk

shall file a copy of plaintiff’s complaint in each of the new cases along with a copy of this order. 

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the July 14, 2006 motion by defendants

Lane, Godman, Mitchell, Anderson, Tillman and Burgess that claims II and III found in

plaintiff’s complaint be stayed, be granted. 

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02309-LKK -KJM Document 63 Filed 01/19/07 Page 3 of 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

4

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: January 18, 2007.

1

coyl2309.57

Case 2:04-cv-02309-LKK -KJM Document 63 Filed 01/19/07 Page 4 of 4