Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00989/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00989-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROLAND DELEON,

RICHARD MILLER, and

RUEBEN ROBERTS,

Plaintiffs,

v.

POWERS, WARDEN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-CV-00788-AWI-SMS-P

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

REASSIGNMENT OF ACTION TO JUDGE

HENDERSON

(Doc. 7)

ORDER SEVERING CLAIMS OF PLAINTIFFS

AND DIRECTING CLERK OF THE COURT

TO OPEN NEW ACTIONS FOR PLAINTIFFS

MILLER AND ROBERTS

(Doc. 1)

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFFS MILLER

AND ROBERTS TO FILE AMENDED

COMPLAINTS, AND REQUIRING

PLAINTIFFS DELEON, MILLER, AND

ROBERTS TO PAY FILING FEES OR FILE

APPLICATIONS TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS

I. Order

A. Reassignment of Action

Plaintiff Roland Deleon, Richard Miller, and Rueben Roberts are state prisoners proceeding

pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs filed the complaint in this

action on May 16, 2005. On July 11, 2005, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking the reassignment of this

action to United States District Court Judge Thelton E. Henderson. 

///

Case 1:05-cv-00989-OWW -SMS Document 3 Filed 08/03/05 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

Plaintiffs’ claims arose at Avenal State Prison, which is in Kings County. Venue for

plaintiffs’ claims in proper in the Eastern District of California. Judge Henderson is a judge with

the Northern District of California. Further, although there are circumstances in which the

reassignment of an action to a particular judge may be proper (e.g., consolidation of actions, etc.),

the personal preference of the parties is never such a reason and cannot be accommodated. See

Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998) (judge-shopping an abuse of

judicial process). Plaintiffs’ motion must therefore be denied.

B. Severance of Claims

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

In the instant action, all three plaintiffs are in the custody of the California Department of

Corrections. In this court’s experience, an action brought by multiple plaintiffs proceeding pro se

in which one or more of the plaintiffs are 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 three plaintiffs will lead to delay and

confusion.

Accordingly, the court shall order plaintiffs’ claims severed. Plaintiff Deleon will proceed

in this action, while plaintiffs Miller and Roberts 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.

///

Case 1:05-cv-00989-OWW -SMS Document 3 Filed 08/03/05 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

1

 At this juncture, no plaintiff has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis or paid the $250.00

filing fee in full.

3

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 Deleon, Miller and Roberts will be severed, plaintiffs Miller

and Roberts shall be given thirty days to file, in his own action, an amended complaint. In addition,

plaintiffs Deleon, Miller, and Roberts shall each either pay the $250.00 filing fees in full or file

completed applications for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, using the forms provided by the court

with this order.1

C. Order

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

1. Plaintiffs’ motion for reassignment of this action to Judge Henderson, filed July 11,

2005, is DENIED;

2. Plaintiff Deleon shall proceed as the sole plaintiff in case number 01:05-CV-00788-

AWI-SMS-P;

3. The claims of plaintiffs Miller and Roberts are severed from the claims of plaintiff

Deleon;

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to:

a. Open two separate civil actions for plaintiffs Miller and Roberts;

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

Miller and Roberts;

d. Place a copy of the complaint filed on May 16, 2005 in the instant action in

the new actions opened for plaintiffs Miller and Roberts;

///

Case 1:05-cv-00989-OWW -SMS Document 3 Filed 08/03/05 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

e. Send plaintiffs Miller and Roberts each an endorsed copy of the complaint,

filed May 16, 2005, bearing the case number assigned to his own individual

action;

f. Send plaintiffs Miller and Roberts each a civil rights complaint form; and

g. Send plaintiffs Deleon, Miller, and Roberts each an application to proceed in

forma pauperis by a prisoner;

5. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, plaintiffs Miller and

Roberts shall each file an amended complaint bearing his new case number;

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

Miller, and Roberts shall each, for his own individual case, either pay the filing fee

in full or submit a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis; and

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

be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 1, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00989-OWW -SMS Document 3 Filed 08/03/05 Page 4 of 4