(PC) Williams et al v. Woodford et al, No. 1:2006cv01535 - Document 30 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 23 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS, and Dismissing Certain Claims without Prejudice signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 04/16/2009. (Flores, E)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Williams et al v. Woodford et al Doc. 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 JOHN WESLEY WILLIAMS, 10 Plaintiff, 11 12 13 CASE NO. 1:06-cv-1535-AWI-DLB PC ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS WITHOUT PREJUDICE v. WOODFORD, et al., (Doc. 23) Defendants. 14 / 15 16 Plaintiff John Wesley Williams (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 17 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to 18 a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302. 19 On January 20, 2009, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations herein 20 which was served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objection to the 21 Findings and Recommendations was to be filed within thirty days. Plaintiff filed an Objection to the 22 Findings and Recommendations on February 17, 2009. 23 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a 24 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings 25 and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. In the Objection 26 Plaintiff contends that he has stated a claim against the Defendants that the Magistrate Judge has 27 recommenced dismissal. However, the issue is not whether Plaintiff has stated a claim; This issue 28 is whether Plaintiff’s joinder in one action of completely separate incidents involving completely 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 separate Defendants is proper. The court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that it is improper for 2 the court to resolve this many different factual occurrences involving a multitude of Defendants in 3 one action. See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no “buckshot” complaints); 4 Fed.R.Civ.Pro.20(a)(2) (defendants may be joined in one action as defendants if any right to relief 5 is asserted against them arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or 6 occurrences); Fed.R.Civ.Pro.18(a) (allowing multiple claims against opposing party but not multiple 7 unrelated claims against different defendants). In this action, the Magistrate Judge choose a 8 Defendant against whom Plaintiff has clearly stated a claim, and the Magistrate Judge ordered 9 service on this Defendant. If Plaintiff believes the complaint states other causes of action against 10 other Defendants, Plaintiff is free to file other complaints concerning each factual pattern containing 11 a common nucleus of operative facts. 12 Findings and Recommendation. Thus, the objections present no grounds to not adopt the 13 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 14 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed January 20, 2009, is adopted in full; 15 2. This action shall proceed against Defendant Vasquez for violation of the First 16 17 Amendment; and 3. The remaining claims are dismissed, without prejudice, for violation of Rule 18(a). 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: 0m8i78 April 16, 2009 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2
]]>
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.
