(PC) Hamilton v. Lopez, et al, No. 1:2004cv05129 - Document 62 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 51 & 55 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; and Dismissing all Defendants except Lopez and Aguirre signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 6/28/2010. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF

(PC) Hamilton v. Lopez, et al Doc. 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 GEORGE HAMILTON, 10 11 CASE NO. 1:04-cv-5129-OWW-MJS (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING CLAIMS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS OTHER THAN LOPEZ AND AGUIRRE v. 12 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 13 Defendants. (Docs. 41, 51 & 55) / 14 15 Plaintiff George Hamilton, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed 16 this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United 17 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 18 Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, filed on August 20, 2008, was an eighty-page document 19 that named approximately seventy-five defendants (not including “Roes 1-100”). In screening 20 Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, the Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff had joined together 21 multiple unrelated causes of action in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 18(a). (Doc. 45.) 22 The Magistrate Judge reviewed the merits of Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Lopez, Aguirre, 23 Vogal and Halberg as those claims arose out of the same “transaction, occurrence, or series of 24 transactions or occurrences.” See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 20(a)(2). The Magistrate Judge found that 25 Plaintiff had stated cognizable claims against Defendants Lopez and Aguirre but not against 26 Defendants Vogal and Halberg. As to the remaining Defendants, the Magistrate Judge recommended 27 dismissing Plaintiff’s claims without prejudice to Plaintiff filing separate actions for each related 28 series of events in compliance with Federal Rules 8(a), 18, 19 and 20. Plaintiff was given the 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 opportunity to either amend his complaint or to notify the Court that he wished to proceed on only 2 those claims found to be cognizable. 3 After much delay, on March 15, 2010, Plaintiff informed the Court that he wished to proceed 4 only on the claims found cognizable by the Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 52.) Plaintiff has since filed 5 the necessary documents and the Court has ordered the United States Marshal to serve Defendants 6 Lopez and Aguirre. On May 4, 2010, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations 7 recommending the dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims other than those against Lopez and Aguirre. (Doc. 8 55.) 9 Plaintiff now objects to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations and asks the 10 Court to screen his remaining claims to determine whether he has alleged cognizable claims against 11 the other seventy-plus Defendants. (Doc. 61.) The Court declines to do so. As Plaintiff has been 12 informed on a number of occasions, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not allow him to bring 13 unrelated claims against multiple defendants in the same lawsuit. See George v. Smith, 507 f.3d 14 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (“Thus multiple claims against a single party are fine, but Claim A against 15 Defendant 1 should not be joined with unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2. Unrelated claims 16 against different defendants belong in different suits.”). The Court is dismissing with prejudice only 17 Plaintiff’s claims against Vogal and Halberg, meaning that Plaintiff cannot bring those claims against 18 those Defendants in another lawsuit. All of Plaintiff’s other claims against all of the other 19 Defendants are being dismissed without prejudice, meaning Plaintiff is free to bring those claims 20 again in a different matter. 21 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a 22 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings 23 and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 2 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed May 4, 2010, is adopted; 3 2. Plaintiff has stated cognizable claims against Defendant Aguirre and Lopez and such 4 5 claims remain pending in this action; 3. 6 7 8 9 10 Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Vogal and Halberg are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; 4. Plaintiff’s claims against all other remaining Defendants are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 28, 2010 emm0d6 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.