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 ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

PATRICK DRUM,

Plaintiff,

v.

HAROLD CLARKE,

Defendant.

 Case No. C06-5360 RBL/KLS

ORDER DENYING THIRD-PARTY

MOTIONS TO JOIN ACTION BY

JAMES DAVIS AND JESSIHA

LANCASTER

This civil rights action has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Karen L.

Strombom pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local MJR 3 and 4. Presently before

the Court are the Non-Party Motions to Join Action by James Davis (Dkt. # 87) and Jessiha

Lancaster (Dkt. # 88). Defendant opposes the motions. (Dkt. # 91). For the reasons set forth

below, the undersigned recommends that the motions be denied. 

I. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff has filed a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 naming Harold Clarke,

Secretary of the Department of Corrections (DOC) as sole Defendant. (Dkt. # 11). Plaintiff alleges

Case 3:06-cv-05360-RBL Document 107 Filed 04/03/07 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 ORDER - 2

that his constitutional rights were violated by Defendant Clarke because he manages policies and

dictates rules for DOC. (Id. at 2). Plaintiff alleges that a corrections officer used excessive force and

injured him during an infraction hearing. Plaintiff alleges that the incident was captured on video

tape but because the tape was disposed of pursuant to DOC policy, he was not able to present

evidence of his innocence contrary to written reports stating otherwise. (Id. at 3). Plaintiff seeks an

order directing DOC to create a policy to retain security camera videos. (Id.).

Plaintiff has submitted motions to join on behalf of two non-party inmates, James Davis and

Jessiha Lancaster. (Dkt. # 87, 88). Plaintiff prepared and signed the motions on behalf of these

inmates. (Dkt. # 94).

Defendant objects to the motions on the grounds that they are not properly signed pursuant

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. Defendant also objects to the motions on the grounds that

Plaintiff is not authorized to sign documents on behalf of other inmates and the motions should be

stricken from the record. Finally, Defendant argues that neither of the individuals have shown that

they need to be added to the lawsuit under Rules 19, 20 and 21 as either complete relief can be

provided in their absence and disposition in this action would not impede their rights nor subject

them to inconsistent obligations. (Dkt. # 91).

Although Plaintiff may appear pro se on behalf of himself, he has no authority to appear as

an attorney for others than himself. C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th

Cir. 1987). Despite Mr. Lancaster’s affidavit of endorsement (Dkt. # 95), Plaintiff has no authority

to sign pleadings on his behalf. By doing so, Plaintiff is in violation of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure. For these reasons alone, the motions may be denied.

In addition, there has been no demonstration that the interests of the parties seeking joinder

would be impaired in their absence or that other parties would be subjected to multiple or

inconsistent liabilities. See, Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)(2); Aguilar v. Los Angeles County, 751 F.2d 1089,

1092 (9th Cir. 1985). Aside from common request for a change to DOC’s policy for retention of

Case 3:06-cv-05360-RBL Document 107 Filed 04/03/07 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 ORDER - 3

security videos, there has been no showing by the parties seeking joinder that their claims against the

Defendant arose out of the same series of occurrences or that Plaintiff’s action raises questions of

law and fact common to all the parties. See, Fed. R. Civ. P. 20; Desert Empire Bank v. Ins. Co. Of

North America, 623 F.2d 1371, 1375 (9th Cir. 1980).

Moreover, the court may consider the principles of fundamental fairness in determining

whether the permissive joinder of additional parties should be allowed and the motives of the moving

parties in seeking amendment of the pleadings to allow joinder. (Id.). In this regard, the Court notes

that Plaintiff has filed separate motions for class action certification, (Dkt. # 77, 86), and these

motions are part of Plaintiff’s attempt to gain class certification of his case. However, the

undersigned is recommending by separate Report and Recommendation that the motion for class

certification be denied. The Court also notes that Plaintiff has already been given ample opportunity

to amend his pleading. (Dkt. # 31). At that time, Plaintiff was instructed to include all parties,

factual allegations, causes of action, relief sought, and exhibits. (Id.). 

Accordingly, Non-Party Motions to Join Action by James Davis (Dkt. # 87) and Jessiha

Lancaster (Dkt. # 88) are DENIED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send copies of this Order

to Plaintiff and to counsel for Defendant.

DATED this 2nd day of April, 2007.

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05360-RBL Document 107 Filed 04/03/07 Page 3 of 3