United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, Winchester
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
K. LEE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
a pro se prisoner's civil rights lawsuit filed pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Now before the Court are
Plaintiff's motions to amend/revise the complaint [Docs.
8 and 16], Defendants' motion for extension of time to
file an answer to the complaint [Doc. 13], Plaintiff's
motion for status of case, copies of motions, and form
processing [Doc. 14], and Plaintiff's motion regarding
his receipt of a notice of failure to file his
consent/non-consent to the Magistrate Judge [Doc. 21]. The
Court will address these motions in turn based upon the
in light of the lack of opposition thereto, Defendants'
motion for extension of time to file an answer to the
complaint [Doc. 13] will be GRANTED.
Plaintiff's motion for status of case, copies of motions,
and process forms [Doc. 14] will be GRANTED only to the
extent that the instant order is being entered and the Clerk
has sent Plaintiff a copy request notice [Doc. 15].
Plaintiff has filed a motion regarding his receipt of a
notice of failure to file his consent/non-consent to the
United States Magistrate Judge [Doc. 21]. In this motion,
Plaintiff questions why he received a “notice of
failure to file” this form because he states he timely
sent his consent [Id. at 1-3]. As this matter has
been referred to the undersigned pursuant to the parties'
consent thereto [Doc. 22], this motion [Doc. 21] will be
DENIED as moot.
original complaint, Plaintiff asserts that in two separate,
unrelated incidents on September 24, 2015, and October 2,
2015, Defendant Sharp used excessive force against him [Doc.
1 p. 6-7]. Plaintiff also sets forth an unrelated claim
arising out of a March 2015 incident in which Plaintiff
alleges that Defendant Shedd used excessive force against him
[Id. at 8]. Plaintiff has now filed a motion to
amend his complaint in which he seeks to add claims against
various Defendants arising out of an unrelated assault on
February 28, 2016 [Doc. 8].
Rule 20(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
persons may only be joined in one action as defendants where
“(A) any right to relief is asserted against them
jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or
arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of
transactions or occurrences; and (B) any question of law or
fact common to all defendants will arise in the
action.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 20(a)(2). Rule 20 does not,
however, permit plaintiffs to join unrelated claims against
different defendants in one lawsuit. George v.
Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). Rule 18, on
the other hand, allows a plaintiff to assert “as many
claims as it has against an opposing party.”
forth above, Plaintiff's original complaint alleges
claims arising out of two separate and unrelated incidents of
excessive force on the part of Defendants Sharp and one
separate and unrelated incident of excessive force on the
part of Defendant Shedd. Plaintiff's claims against
Defendant Sharp arising out of unrelated excessive incidents
are properly joined in this action pursuant to Rule 18.
Plaintiff's excessive force claim against Defendant
Shedd, however, is not properly joined in this action with
his claims against Defendant Sharp, as the excessive force
incident involving Defendant Shedd is unrelated to the two
excessive force incidents involving Defendant Sharp.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's claim against Defendant Shedd in
his original complaint will be SEVERED from this action
pursuant to Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 21 (providing as to misjoinder of parties that
“[t]he court may  sever any claim against a
First Motion to Amend the Complaint
first motion to file an amended complaint, Plaintiff states
in relevant part that, after he filed his original complaint,
he was assaulted by other inmates due to the deliberate
indifference of a guard [Doc. 8 p. 2]. Plaintiff also alleges
that he was charged for this assault due to racial
support of these allegations, Plaintiff states that on
February 28, 2016, inmates who were members of the Aryan
nation gang assaulted him in a location that was “two
cells over from [Plaintiff's] cell” [Id.
at 2]. Plaintiff states that he notified Officer Foust that
he needed help and medical assistance due to a fight by using
the cell speaker ...