IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

GEORGE LOPEZ, : Civil No. 3:21-CV-1819 

: 

Plaintiff, : 

: (Judge Mehalchick) 

v. : 

 : 

JOHN WETZEL, et al., : (Magistrate Judge Carlson) 

 : 

Defendants : 

__________________________________________________________________ 

DARIEN HOUSER, : Civil No. 3:24-CV-603 

: 

Plaintiff, : 

: (Judge Mehalchick) 

v. : 

 : 

JOHN WETZEL, et al., : (Magistrate Judge Carlson) 

 : 

Defendants :

__________________________________________________________________ 

GERALD WATKINS, : Civil No. 3:24-CV-604 

: 

Plaintiff, : 

: 

v. : 

 : 

JOHN WETZEL, et al., : (Magistrate Judge Carlson) 

 : 

Defendants : 

Case 3:21-cv-01819-KM Document 204 Filed 05/17/24 Page 1 of 7
2 

__________________________________________________________________ 

RALPH STOKES, : Civil No. 3:24-CV-605 

: 

Plaintiff, : 

: 

v. : 

 : 

JOHN WETZEL, et al., : (Magistrate Judge Carlson) 

 : 

Defendants : 

__________________________________________________________________ 

JOSE UDERRA, : Civil No. 3:24-CV-606 

: 

Plaintiff, : 

: 

v. : 

 : 

JOHN WETZEL, et al., : (Magistrate Judge Carlson) 

 : 

Defendants : 

__________________________________________________________________ 

RICHARD A. POPLAWSKI, : Civil No. 3:24-CV-607 

: 

Plaintiff, : 

: 

v. : 

 : 

JOHN WETZEL, et al., : (Magistrate Judge Carlson) 

 : 

Defendants :

Case 3:21-cv-01819-KM Document 204 Filed 05/17/24 Page 2 of 7
3 

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 

THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS: 

These pro se prisoner civil rights actions were originally brought as a single 

lawsuit by six inmates held by the Department of Corrections challenging what they 

allege was unconstitutionally prolonged and severe solitary confinement by 

corrections staff. (Doc. 1). According to the plaintiffs they have suffered severe 

emotional and psychological injuries due to this prolonged solitary confinement. 

(Id.) However, a review of the plaintiffs’ complaint reveals that these alleged 

instances of solitary confinement occurred at different places and times over the past 

two decades. (Id.) Further, the complaint asserts that each individual prisoner 

plaintiff suffered from distinct emotional impairments which were exacerbated in 

different ways by their confinement. (Id.) Thus, factually these six plaintiffs have 

claims that involved disparate acts and actors which have had different and distinct 

impacts upon their lives. 

On November 10, 2023, this case was referred to the undersigned for case 

management. Upon review, we noted that there were a number of motions pending 

in this case, including a motion signed by one plaintiff, George Lopez, who 

purported to speak on behalf of two other plaintiffs, Richard Poplawski and Gerald 

Watkins. (Doc. 135). In this motion these three inmate plaintiffs sought to sever their 

Case 3:21-cv-01819-KM Document 204 Filed 05/17/24 Page 3 of 7
4 

case from the complaints of plaintiffs Darien Houser, Ralph Stokes, and Jose Uderra. 

(Id.) 

The defendants took no position with respect to this motion, “as it appears to 

be a dispute between the Plaintiffs.” (Doc. 154). However, there was no indication 

that Uderra, Houser and Stokes were served with a copy of this pleading filed by 

their erstwhile co-plaintiffs. Moreover, it was uncertain if inmates Richard 

Poplawski and Gerald Watkins concurred in Lopez’s motion to sever parties. 

Therefore, we were unclear regarding the position of all of these other plaintiffs on 

this request. Recognizing that this motion highlighted a number of the difficulties, 

challenges, and perils inherent in multi-plaintiff pro se litigation on November 28, 

202 we entered an order which denied the pro se motion to sever plaintiffs, (Doc. 

135), without prejudice and directed the plaintiffs to individually show cause on or 

before December 18, 2023, why their separate claims should not be severed into 

separate and distinct complaints. (Doc. 160). 

 We received some partial responses to this order, responses which highlighted 

the burgeoning procedural chaos and discord which the current collective pro se

litigation created. Specifically, two of these inmate plaintiffs—Darien Houser and 

Ralph Stokes—objected to inmate Lopez’s plan to unilaterally jettison them this 

collective lawsuit. (Docs. 164 and 165). For his part, inmate Lopez filed a response 

which decries the lack of assistance and cooperation from his co-plaintiffs. 

Case 3:21-cv-01819-KM Document 204 Filed 05/17/24 Page 4 of 7
5 

Purporting then to speak on his own behalf and on behalf of inmates Richard 

Poplawski and Gerald Watkins Lopez agreed to the severance of these six cases. 

(Doc. 170). Poplawski and Watkins did not separately respond to this order. The 

final pro se plaintiff, inmate Uderra, also did not respond to this court order. 

 Given this procedural posture, we recommended that the increasingly 

discordant claims of these six inmate plaintiffs be severed. (Doc. 172). The district 

court adopted this recommendation and these cases have now been severed. (Doc. 

192). We then instructed each of the plaintiffs in the separate cases to file a statement 

with the court indicating whether the plaintiff is proceeding with this individual 

claim, along with a proposed case management plan outlining what steps the plaintiff 

believes need to be taken in this litigation on or before April 26, 2024. 

We have received these statements, which indicate that the plaintiffs all wish 

to pursue their claims individually and may also wish to each conduct some 

additional discovery. Given the somewhat chaotic nature in which discovery was 

pursued,1 acting out of an abundance of caution we will set the following case 

management schedule in these cases moving forward: 

1 We recognize that the discovery deadlines initially set here have passed. What is 

less clear is the degree to which the inmate plaintiffs have each individually pursued 

discovery of their particular claims. While the docket shows active discvery 

litigation by Plaintiffs Lopez and Houser, we cannot discern whether the remaining 

inmate-plaintiffs have actively pursued discovery. Therefore, acting out of an 

abundance of caution we will allow a limited additional period of discovery in these 

cases. 

Case 3:21-cv-01819-KM Document 204 Filed 05/17/24 Page 5 of 7
6 

IT IS ORDERED that following case management deadlines will govern these 

cases: 

1. COUNSEL AND PRO SE LITIGANTS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR 

READING THIS ENTIRE ORDER. 

 2. Schedule. The following deadlines, described in greater detail throughout 

this order, have been established for this case, and may not be modified by the 

parties. Motions to modify or extend the deadlines established here shall be made 

before expiration of the time limits has passed. All requests for extensions of 

discovery deadlines must be made at least thirty (30) days prior to the 

expiration of the discovery period. Motions will be granted only on a showing 

of good cause. 

 Close of Discovery: September 27, 2024 

 Dispositive Motions and Supporting Briefs Due: September 27, 2024 

Further deadlines will be set following the resolution of any dispositive 

motions. 

3. Discovery Limitations. In the absence of mutual consent to exceed these 

limits or a court order, the maximum number of interrogatories per side shall be 

fifteen (15); the maximum number of document production requests per side shall 

be fifteen (15); and the maximum number of requests for admissions per side shall 

be fifteen (15). 

Case 3:21-cv-01819-KM Document 204 Filed 05/17/24 Page 6 of 7
7 

4. Dispositive Motions. Dispositive motions may be filed at any time, but 

all dispositive motion must be filed, as well as the supporting briefs, on or before

September 27, 2024.

 Any requests to alter this schedule should be made by written motion. 

So ordered this 17th day of May 2024. 

S/Martin C. Carlson 

Martin C. Carlson 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:21-cv-01819-KM Document 204 Filed 05/17/24 Page 7 of 7