Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01855/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01855-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Zahed Uddin Ahmed
Defendant
Santiago Cruz
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SANTIAGO CRUZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

ZAHED UDDIN AHMED,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-01855-KAW 

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR 

JOINDER AND DISMISSING DOE 

DEFENDANTS WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

TO FILING A NEW COMPLAINT

Re: Dkt. No. 9

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, 

alleging the violation of his constitutional rights by Dr. Zahed Uddin Ahmed and Doe Defendants. 

In an August 7, 2015 order, the Court found that the allegations in the complaint appeared to state 

a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against 

Dr. Ahmed. The order also stated that Plaintiff must provide to the court the names of the Doe 

Defendants by the date scheduled for Dr. Ahmed to file his dispositive motion or the Doe 

Defendants would be dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff filing a new action against them.

On August 25, 2015, Plaintiff filed a document identifying the Doe Defendants as 

Correctional Officers Betancourt and Carillo. Plaintiff alleges that these two officers engaged in 

conduct to retaliate against him for exercising his First Amendment rights to file administrative 

grievances. Officer Betancourt allegedly subjected Plaintiff to unreasonable cell searches 

resulting in the confiscation of Plaintiff’s personal property and allowed another inmate to assault 

Plaintiff. Officer Carillo allegedly called Plaintiff disrespectful names and harassed him by 

continuously taunting him, searching his cell and confiscating his property. Plaintiff requests that 

Officers Betancourt and Carillo be joined as defendants in his action

There are two requirements for joining a defendant: (1) the claims against all defendants 

Case 4:15-cv-01855-KAW Document 14 Filed 10/09/15 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

must “arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences”; and 

(2) “any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P 

20(a)(2)(A)-(B). 

The retaliation claims against Officers Betancourt and Carillo do not arise out of the same 

transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences as the deliberate indifference to 

serious medical needs claim against Dr. Ahmed, which is based on the allegations that he failed to 

treat Plaintiff for his pain and injuries. Additionally, there is no question of law or fact common to 

the claims against the Officers and against Dr. Ahmed.

Therefore, the Court denies the request to join Officers Betancourt and Carillo in this

action and dismisses the Doe defendants from this action without prejudice. If Plaintiff wishes, he

may file a new action alleging his claims against Officers Betancourt and Carillo.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 9, 2015

______________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:15-cv-01855-KAW Document 14 Filed 10/09/15 Page 2 of 2