Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00620/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00620-11/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID E. EDWARDS, No. CIV S-08-0620-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

CSP SOLANO, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to the written consent of all parties, this case is before the

undersigned as the presiding judge for all purposes, including entry of final judgment. See 28

U.S.C. § 636(c). 

Pending before the court is Plaintiff’s request to join/relate this case to another

inmate’s case, James E. Edwards v. Warden Sisto, et al., case number 09cv3246-GGH. Plaintiff

has also filed a motion to join James E. Edwards as a plaintiff in this case. Plaintiff requests

these cases be related/joined as the plaintiffs are related (father and son), the claims arise out of

the same occurrence, and involve similar questions of law or fact. 

/ / /

Case 2:08-cv-00620-CMK Document 49 Filed 03/18/10 Page 1 of 3
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

Eastern District of California Local Rule 123 allows the court to relate cases

where the actions involve the same parities and are based on the same or similar claims, involve

the same property, transaction or event, or involve similar questions of fact or law. 

A review of this issue reveals that James E. Edwards has voluntarily dismissed his

separate action, 09cv3246-GGH. He notified the court of his intention to join as a plaintiff in

this action, which the court interpreted as a request to voluntarily dismiss the separate action. As

interpreted, his request was granted. Case 09cv3246-GGH has therefore been closed, and the

court is unable to related them. 

Instead, Plaintiff in this action filed a “motion to join as plaintiff” pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24. Rule 24(a) requires the court to permit anyone to intervene

in a case who: 

(1) is given an unconditional right to intervene by a federal statute;

or (2) claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that

is the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the

action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant’s

ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately

represent that interests.

There is no indication in this case that such intervention as of right is appropriate.

Under Rule 24(b)(1), however, the court may permit anyone to intervene who:

“(A) is given a conditional right to intervene by a federal statute; or (B) has a claim or defense

that share with the main action a common question of law or fact.” It appears to the court that

the current request is pursuant to Rule 24(b)(1)(B), permissive intervention.

In this instance, however, both plaintiffs are state prisoners proceeding pro se with

civil rights actions pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In this court’s experience, an action brought by

multiple inmate plaintiffs proceeding pro se 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 to parole, and the

difficulties faced by inmates who attempt to communicate with each other and with

Case 2:08-cv-00620-CMK Document 49 Filed 03/18/10 Page 2 of 3
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

unincarcerated individuals. 

The court therefore finds it inappropriate to allow James E. Edwards to join this

case as a co-plaintiff. James E. Edwards voluntarily dismissed his action pursuant to Rule 41(a),

and specifically requested the dismissal be without prejudice. He may therefore proceed with his

claim in his own action. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request to relate this case to 09cv3246-GGH (Doc. 40) is

denied; and

2. Plaintiff’s request to allow James E. Edwards to intervene as a co-plaintiff

in this action (Doc. 44) is denied.

DATED: March 17, 2010

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:08-cv-00620-CMK Document 49 Filed 03/18/10 Page 3 of 3