Cruz v. Ahmed

Northern District of California, cand-4:2015-cv-01855

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR JOINDER AND DISMISSING DOE DEFENDANTS re {{9}} Notice (Other) filed by Santiago Cruz. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 10/9/15.

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SANTIAGO CRUZ, 7 Case No. 15-cv-01855-KAW Plaintiff, 8 v. ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR 9 JOINDER AND DISMISSING DOE ZAHED UDDIN AHMED, DEFENDANTS WITHOUT PREJUDICE 10 TO FILING A NEW COMPLAINT Defendant. 11 Re: Dkt. No. 9 12 Northern District of California United States District Court 13 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, 14 alleging the violation of his constitutional rights by Dr. Zahed Uddin Ahmed and Doe Defendants. 15 In an August 7, 2015 order, the Court found that the allegations in the complaint appeared to state 16 a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against 17 Dr. Ahmed. The order also stated that Plaintiff must provide to the court the names of the Doe 18 Defendants by the date scheduled for Dr. Ahmed to file his dispositive motion or the Doe 19 Defendants would be dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff filing a new action against them. 20 On August 25, 2015, Plaintiff filed a document identifying the Doe Defendants as 21 Correctional Officers Betancourt and Carillo. Plaintiff alleges that these two officers engaged in 22 conduct to retaliate against him for exercising his First Amendment rights to file administrative 23 grievances. Officer Betancourt allegedly subjected Plaintiff to unreasonable cell searches 24 resulting in the confiscation of Plaintiff's personal property and allowed another inmate to assault 25 Plaintiff. Officer Carillo allegedly called Plaintiff disrespectful names and harassed him by 26 continuously taunting him, searching his cell and confiscating his property. Plaintiff requests that 27 Officers Betancourt and Carillo be joined as defendants in his action 28 There are two requirements for joining a defendant: (1) the claims against all defendants 1 must "arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences"; and 2 (2) "any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action." Fed. R. Civ. P 3 20(a)(2)(A)-(B). 4 The retaliation claims against Officers Betancourt and Carillo do not arise out of the same 5 transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences as the deliberate indifference to 6 serious medical needs claim against Dr. Ahmed, which is based on the allegations that he failed to 7 treat Plaintiff for his pain and injuries. Additionally, there is no question of law or fact common to 8 the claims against the Officers and against Dr. Ahmed. 9 Therefore, the Court denies the request to join Officers Betancourt and Carillo in this 10 action and dismisses the Doe defendants from this action without prejudice. If Plaintiff wishes, he 11 may file a new action alleging his claims against Officers Betancourt and Carillo. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. Northern District of California United States District Court 13 Dated: October 9, 2015 14 ______________________________________ KANDIS A. WESTMORE 15 United States Magistrate Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2