Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00994/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00994-0/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

27

28

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANK E. SISNEROZ, 1:05-CV-0519 AWI LJO P

Plaintiffs, ORDER SEVERING PLAINTIFFS’

CLAIMS, AND DIRECTING CLERK

vs. OF COURT TO OPEN FOUR NEW

ACTIONS FOR PLAINTIFFS MARTINEZ,

BILL WHITMAN, Sheriff,, et al., HURTADO, CHAMPAGNE AND SIMMONS

Defendants. [Doc. 1]

 /

I. Severance of Plaintiffs’ Claims

Plaintiffs Frank E. Sisneroz, Joe Martinez, Manuel Hurtado, Alvin Champagne and Robert

Simmons are civil detainees proceeding pro se in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

After reviewing the record in this action, 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 “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,” and “any claim against a party may be severed and

proceeded with separately.” Courts have broad discretion regarding severance. See Davis v. Mason

Case 1:05-cv-00994-AWI-LJO Document 1 Filed 08/04/05 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

27

28

2

County, 927 F.2d 1473, 1479 (9th Cir. 1991).

In the instant action, all five (5) Plaintiffs are in the custody at the Atascadero State Hospital,

10333 El Camino Real, P.O. Box 7001, Atascadero, CA 93423-7001. In this Court’s experience, an

action brought by multiple plaintiffs proceeding pro se in which one or more of the plaintiffs is

incarcerated presents procedural problems that cause delay and confusion. Delay often arises from

the frequent transfer of inmates to other facilities or institutions, the changes in address that occur

when inmates are released on parole, and the difficulties faced by inmates who attempt to

communicate with each other and other unincarcerated individuals. In this case, the need for the

Plaintiffs to agree on all filings made in this action and the need for all filings to contain the original

signatures of all five (5) Plaintiffs will lead to delay and confusion.

Accordingly, the Court shall order Plaintiffs’ claims severed. Plaintiff Sisneroz will proceed

in this action, while Plaintiffs Martinez, Hurtado, Champagne and Simmons will proceed in separate

civil actions to be opened by the Clerk of the Court. Each plaintiff shall proceed separately and shall

be solely responsible for his own action.

The Clerk of the Court will be directed to assign the new actions to the same district judge

and magistrate judge assigned to the instant action. The Clerk of the Court shall make appropriate

adjustment in the assignment of civil cases to compensate for this reassignment.

Since the claims of Plaintiffs Martinez, Hurtado, Champagne and Simmons will be severed,

each Plaintiff shall be given thirty (30) days to file, in his own action, an Amended Complaint and a

completed Application for Lave to Poceed In Forma Pauperis, using the forms provided by the Court

with this order. 

II. Plaintiff Sisneroz’s’ Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

Plaintiff Sisneroz has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis correctly filled out

and signed by a prison official. In addition, the form was accompanied by a certified copy of

Plaintiff Sisneroz’s prison trust account statement. The Court will rule on Plaintiff Sisneroz

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis in a separate order. 

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

1. Plaintiff Sisneroz SHALL proceed as the sole Plaintiff in case number 1:05-CV-0519-

Case 1:05-cv-00994-AWI-LJO Document 1 Filed 08/04/05 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

27

28

3

AWI-LJO-P;

2. The claims of Plaintiffs Martinez, Hurtado, Champagne and Simmons are severed

from the claims of Plaintiff Sisneroz;

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to:

a. Open four separate civil actions for Plaintiffs Martinez, Hurtado, Champagne

and Simmons;

b. Assign the new actions to the 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

Martinez, Hurtado, Champagne and Simmons;

d. Place a copy of the Complaint filed on April 20, 2005, in the instant action in

the new actions opened for Plaintiffs Martinez, Hurtado, Champagne and

Simmons;

e. Place a copy of the Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis filed by each

Plaintiff, Martinez, Hurtado, Champagne and Simmons, in his respective new

case file;

f. Send Plaintiffs Martinez, Hurtado, Champagne and Simmons each an

endorsed copy of the complaint, filed April 20, 2005, bearing the case number

assigned to his own individual action; and

g. Send Plaintiffs Martinez, Hurtado, Champagne and Simmons each a blank

civil rights Complaint form; and

4. Within THIRTY (30) DAYS from the date of service of this Order, Plaintiffs

Martinez, Hurtado, Champagne and Simmons shall each file an Amended

Complaint bearing his new case number and either pay the filing fee in full or

submit a completed Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis bearing his new

case number. Plaintiffs are advised that Local Rule 15-220 requires that an

Amended Complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. As

Case 1:05-cv-00994-AWI-LJO Document 1 Filed 08/04/05 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

27

28

4

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. The Amended Complaint should be

clearly and boldly titled “AMENDED COMPLAINT,” reference the NEW case

number assigned to them, and be an original signed under penalty of perjury; and

5. The failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that the

action be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 2, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b6edp0 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00994-AWI-LJO Document 1 Filed 08/04/05 Page 4 of 4