Readon v. Walker et al, No. 2:2010cv00236 - Document 60 (M.D. Fla. 2012)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER denying 55 Motion to sever. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 8/20/2012. (RKR)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION KELVIN J. READON, SR., Plaintiff, vs. Case No. LIEUTENANT GATTO, KILGO and 2:10-cv-236-FtM-29SPC LIEUTENANT Defendants. ________________________________ OPINION AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court upon review of Defendants Motion to Sever (Doc. #55, Motion), filed June 22, 2012. Plaintiff did not file a response to the Motion and the time to do so has expired. See docket. This matter is ripe for review. I. On June 13, 2012, the Court entered an Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants Motion to Dismiss. See Doc. #53. Specifically, the Court found that the action should proceed against Defendant Kilgo with respect to the July 2 incident and against Defendants Gatto and Kilgo with respect to the July 8 incident. Id. at 20. Both incidents involve allegations of excessive use of force at Charlotte Correctional Institution. See generally id. Defendants were directed to file an Answer within fourteen days from the date on the Order. Id. at 20. Defendants filed their Answer and Affirmative Defenses on June 26, 2012. See Doc. #56. However, before filing their Answer, Defendants move the Court to sever the claims raised in the Amended Complaint based on misjoinder. See generally Motion. Specifically, Defendants Kilgo and Gatto request that the Court either dismiss the July 2 or July 8 incidents and allow Plaintiff to proceed with only one of those claims in this action. Id. Defendants argue that the two incidents involving the alleged excessive use of force are separate incidents and only the July 8 incident involves both Defendants Gatto and Kilgo. Defendants argue that allowing Plaintiff to Id. at 1, 4. file an action regarding the two separate incidents permits Plaintiff to proceed with two different claims while only paying one filing fee, contrary to the requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Id. at 3. II. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 18(a): A party asserting a claim . . . may join, as independent or alternative claims, as many claims as it has against an opposing party. Thus, Rule 18(a) permits a plaintiff to bring multiple claims against a single defendant. therefore proper. Both claims against defendant Kilgo are If, however, joining a claim requires joining additional parties, the claim must comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 20. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2) states defendants may be joined in one action as defendants if: (A) any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or -2- that 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. encouraged P. in 20(a)(2). the interest Joinder of of judicial parties economy, is generally subject to fulfillment of two prerequisites: the persons who are joined as defendants must be interested in claims that arise out of the same transaction or occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and, all the parties joined must share in common at least one question of law or fact. Alexander v. Fulton County, 207 F.3d 1303, 1323 (11th Cir. 2000), overruled other grounds, Manders v. Lee, 338 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2003). In determining what constitutes a transaction or occurrence under Fed. R. Civ. P. 20, the Eleventh Circuit has stated that [t]ransaction is a word of flexible meaning. It may comprehend a series of many occurrences, depending not so much upon the immediateness of their connection as upon relationship. Id. (internal citations omitted). their logical All logically related events entitling a person to institute a legal action against another generally are regarded as comprising a transaction or occurrence. Id. (internal citations omitted). The second requirement under Fed. R. Civ. P. 20 is that some question of law or fact be common to all parties, but does not require all -3- questions of law and fact raised by the dispute be common. Id. (emphasis in original)(citations omitted). The claims raised in the Amended Complaint sub judice involve two alleged two separate incidents of alleged excessive use of force, only one of which involves both named Defendants. However, the two incidents occurred within five days of each other at Charlotte Correctional Institution. Additionally, the Court finds the claims involve common questions of law. The Court is not persuaded by Defendants argument that the Court must sever the claims so that Plaintiff is required to pay two filing fees under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. See Romano v. Secretary, DOC, Case No. 2:06-cv-375-FtM-29DNF, 2011 WL 1790125 *5 (M.D. Fla. 2011). Instead, for purposes of judicial efficiency in this matter, the Court will deny Defendants Motion and allow Plaintiff s excessive use of force claims to proceed in this action. ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby ORDERED: Defendants Motion to Sever (Doc. #55) is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, on this of August, 2012. SA: alj Copies: All Parties of Record -4- 20th day
]]>
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.
