Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Aguilera v. Officer Sharp

United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, Winchester

June 9, 2017

CAE AGUILERA, Plaintiff,
v.
OFFICER SHARP and OFFICER SHEDD, [1] Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          SUSAN K. LEE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         This is 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 relief sought.

         I. Procedural Motions

         First, 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.

         Next, 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].

         Also, 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.

         II. Joinder Issues

         In his 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].

         Under 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.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 18(a)

         A. Original Complaint

         As set 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 party”).

         B. First Motion to Amend the Complaint

         In his 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 discrimination [Id.].

         In 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.