Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01130/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01130-0/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID WESLEY BIRRELL, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ROBERT W. FOX, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:16-cv-1818 DJC CKD P

ORDER

 On August 30, 2017, the court screened plaintiffs’ amended complaint as the court is 

required to do under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court found that plaintiffs could proceed on a 

claim for injunctive relief under the Eighth Amendment, for exposure to harmful substances 

including asbestos, against defendant Fox in his official capacity as the Warden of the California 

Medical Facility. Defendant Fox filed his answer on September 20, 2017.

At that point several matters contributed to extensive delay in this case, most notably the 

withdrawal of counsel for plaintiffs and the issuance of a lengthy stay to permit plaintiffs to retain 

substitute counsel. Plaintiffs never found substitute counsel and most of the plaintiffs have been 

dismissed for various reasons including indifference and a desire not to proceed further.

There are two plaintiffs that remain, however: plaintiff Deegan, who is still housed at the 

California Medical facility; and plaintiff Alford who now resides at the California Health Care 

Facility. Deegan was granted leave to file a second amended complaint and the second amended 

Case 2:23-cv-01130-DJC-CKD Document 2 Filed 06/13/23 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

complaint is before the court for screening. Alford proceeds on the first amended complaint.

For several reasons, including that plaintiffs are now proceeding on different pleadings, 

the court has determined that each plaintiff should proceed separately on his own claims. The 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide “[p]arties 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. Any claim against a party may be severed and proceeded with separately.” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 21. Courts have broad discretion regarding severance. See Davis v. Mason County, 927 

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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff Alford’s claims are severed from plaintiff Deegan’s. The Clerk of the Court is 

directed to open a new action and file a copy of this order and plaintiff Deegan’s second amended 

complaint in that action.

2. The new action shall be assigned to the district court judge and magistrate judge

assigned to this case.

Dated: June 13, 2023

1

birr1818.sev

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-01130-DJC-CKD Document 2 Filed 06/13/23 Page 2 of 2