Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01554/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01554-14/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

JOHN E. WEST,

Plaintiff,

v.

WARDEN JAMES YATES, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-cv-01554-OWW-SMS PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ADD

INMATE DAVID CROCKER AS COPLAINTIFF

(Doc. 38)

Plaintiff John E. West (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 26, 2007, plaintiff filed a

motion seeking leave to add inmate David Crocker as a co-plaintiff. 

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 this instance, plaintiff West and proposed plaintiff Crocker are in the custody of the

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. In the 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

Case 1:05-cv-01554-OWW -SMS Document 41 Filed 03/06/07 Page 1 of 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

2

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 both

plaintiffs will lead to delay and confusion.

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for leave to add inmate David Crocker as a co-plaintiff, filed

February 26, 2007, is HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 5, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01554-OWW -SMS Document 41 Filed 03/06/07 Page 2 of 2