David v. Crow et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JEROME ADRIAN DAVID, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
) 	CIV-21-534-SLP
v. 	)
)
SCOTT CROW, et. al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, a state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, brings
this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his constitutional
rights. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint. Doc.
No. 116. The matter has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for
initial proceedings consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). For the following
reasons, it is recommended Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend be denied.
Plaintiff initiated this action on May 21, 2021. His claims arise from events
that occurred while he was incarcerated at William S. Key Correctional Center
located in Fort Supply, Oklahoma. Plaintiff is currently confined at Jackie
Brannon Correctional Center (“JBCC”) located in McAlester, Oklahoma. In his
current Motion, Plaintiff seeks to add claims against JBCC staff regarding events
occurring at and/or the conditions of confinement in JBCC. Doc. No. 116-1.
Case 5:21-cv-00534-SLP Document 119 Filed 08/30/22 Page 1 of 5

2
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that “a party may amend his
pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party.”
Although Rule 15 mandates that leave to amend is to be “freely given when justice
so requires,” Forman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962), in the context of
litigation initiated by a prisoner in federal court, proposed amendments to the
complaint must also be viewed in light of the restrictions imposed by 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915 as amended by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) in 1996. The
PLRA restrictions include, but are not limited to, full payment of the filing fee in
any civil action or appeal submitted by a prisoner through partial payments over
time as authorized by statute, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) and (2), and a “three
strike” provision that prevents a prisoner from proceeding in forma pauperis if
the prisoner’s litigation in federal court includes three or more cases dismissed as
frivolous, malicious, or as stating no claim for relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Further, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure discourage a complaint
alleging multiple unrelated claims against multiple parties except in limited
circumstances. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2) governs permissive
joinder of defendants and pertinently provides:
(2) Defendants. Persons . . . may be joined in one action as
defendants if:
(A) any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or
Case 5:21-cv-00534-SLP Document 119 Filed 08/30/22 Page 2 of 5

3
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.
In other words, a plaintiff may name more than one defendant in a multiple
claim lawsuit only if the claims against all defendants arose out of the same
incident or incidents and involve a common factual or legal question. While
joinder is encouraged for purposes of judicial economy, the “Federal Rules do not
contemplate joinder of different actions against different parties which present
entirely different factual and legal issues.” Zhu v. Countrywide Realty Co., Inc.,
160 F. Supp. 2d 1210, 1225 (D. Kan. 2001). Where there is misjoinder of parties,
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorize the court, on its own initiative at
any stage of the litigation, to drop any party. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 (“Misjoinder
of parties is not a ground for dismissing an action. On motion or on its own, the
court may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party. The court may also sever
any claim against a party.”).
Additionally, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 18(a) governs joinder of
claims and pertinently provides: “A party asserting a claim . . . may join, as
independent or alternative claims, as many claims as it has against an opposing
party.” Under “the controlling principle” in Rule 18(a), “[u]nrelated claims
Case 5:21-cv-00534-SLP Document 119 Filed 08/30/22 Page 3 of 5

4
against different defendants belong in different suits.” Green v. Denning, No. 06-
3298-SAC, 2009 WL 484457, at *2 (D. Kan. Feb. 26, 2009) (quoting George v.
Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007)). Requiring adherence in prisoner suits
to the federal rules regarding joinder of parties and claims prevents “the sort of
morass [a multiple claim, multiple defendant] suit produce[s].” Id.
Based on these principles, the undersigned concludes Plaintiff’s attempt to
assert new claims based on events occurring at or conditions of confinement in
JBCC violates Rule 20(a)(2) because it would inevitably add new defendants not
shown to be connected to his initial claims by a common occurrence or question
of fact or law. The undersigned also concludes it would violate Rule 18(a) because
it would add claims not related to those already raised herein. To permit Plaintiff
to proceed in this single action on unrelated claims against different defendants
that should be litigated in separate action(s) would allow him to avoid paying the
filing fees required for separate actions, and could also allow him to circumvent
the three strikes provision for any new and unrelated claims that might be found
to be a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing findings, the undersigned recommends Plaintiff’s
Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (Doc. No. 116) be denied. Plaintiff is
Case 5:21-cv-00534-SLP Document 119 Filed 08/30/22 Page 4 of 5

5
advised of the right to file an objection to this Fourth Supplemental Report and
Recommendation with the Clerk of this Court by September 19th , 2022, in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. The failure to timely
object to this Fourth Supplemental Report and Recommendation would waive
appellate review of the recommended ruling. Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d
656 (10th Cir. 1991); cf. Marshall v. Chater, 75 F.3d 1421, 1426 (10th Cir. 1996)
(“Issues 	raised 	for 	the 	first 	time 	in 	objections 	to 	the 	magistrate 	judge’s
recommendation are deemed waived.”).
This Fourth Supplemental Report and Recommendation does not dispose
of all issues referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge in the captioned matter.
Dated this 	30 th day of August, 2022.
Case 5:21-cv-00534-SLP Document 119 Filed 08/30/22 Page 5 of 5