Huff et al v. Steward et al, No. 3:2011cv00395 - Document 21 (E.D. Va. 2011)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 11/9/11. Copy sent: Yes(tdai, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division JOHNNY R. HUFF, et al.. Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 3:11CV395 JIM STEWARD, III, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Thirteen detainees at the Virginia Center for Rehabilitative Services (hereinafter "Plaintiffs") filed this pro se 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 action.1 I. By Memorandum Order informed Plaintiffs PROCEDURAL HISTORY entered on August 9, 2011, that they could not pursue the the Court action as class action because they were not represented by counsel. Court further noted the allegations in the original a The complaint failed to provide each defendant with fair notice of the facts and legal basis upon which his or her liability rests.2 Accordingly, 1 Plaintiffs who signed the original complaint were: Johnny R. Huff, Daryl Graves, Charles R. Turner, Phillip Garrett, Harry Hammar, Larry D. Blanchard, Lester Nunley, D. Bryant, Ray Holly, L. Hood, Christopher Bennett, Thomas Lambert, and Melvin Stanley. 2 On August 3, 2011, the Court received a document titled, "AMENDED COMPLAINT.'' That submission consisted largely of a list of inmates who wished to join Plaintiffs' putative class action. Given the Court's ruling on Plaintiffs' attempt to proceed as a class action, consideration. the "AMENDED COMPLAINT" shall receive no further the Court directed Plaintiffs, within twenty-one (21) days of the date of entry conformance thereof, with the to Court's particularize their instructions. complaint The Court in warned Plaintiffs that the particularized complaint must comply with the joinder requirements Procedure.3 of Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Accordingly, within twenty-one (21) days of the date of entry thereof, Plaintiffs were directed to show cause as to why the allegations satisfied the Plaintiffs in the forthcoming requirements that, in the for event particularized joinder. that they The cannot complaint Court warned satisfy the requirements for joinder, the Court will dismiss all claims except for those claims by Johnny R. Huff.4 II. RESPONSE TO THE AUGUST 9, 2011 MEMORANDUM ORDER In response to the August 9, 2011 Memorandum Order, Plaintiffs did not submit a single particularized complaint, which satisfied the requirements for joinder. Instead, Plaintiffs Huff, Nunley, 3 That rule provides: (1) Persons may join in one action as plaintiffs if: (A) they assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or 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 plaintiffs will arise in the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. to all 20(a). 4 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 provides, "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." Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. Hammar, and Bennett submitted particularized complaints claims. Given the that four each foregoing (4) separate set forth their circumstances, the proposed individual Clerk will be DIRECTED to file and process the proposed particularized complaints by Plaintiffs Nunley, Hammar, and Bennett as new civil actions. The present action will proceed on the allegations set forth in Huff's proposed particularized complaint (Docket No. 8). The action will proceed with Huff as the sole Plaintiff in the present action. The Court also has received from Huff a motion for a cease and desist order (Docket No. PLAINTIFFS[' ] CASE" 2), a "MOTION OF EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF (Docket No. Case EXHIBIT/EVIDENCE" 14), and a "MOTION IN SUPPORT OF (Docket No. 18). None of the foregoing motions are accompanied by "a written brief setting forth a concise statement citation of of the the facts and authorities E.D. Va. Loc. Civ. R. 7(F) (1) . a repository for a appropriate motion motions The Court also upon 2, reasons, which the evidence movant pending summary judgement. 14, along with a relies." Moreover, the Court does not act as litigant's for (Docket Nos. supporting and 18) trial Accordingly, or an Huff's will be DENIED. received proposed particularized complaints from detainees Robert Leroy Davis, Jackie Lewis Robinson, Larry C. McFarland, David W. Verser, Robinson. These individuals Frank are E. Beverly, apparently and laboring James E. under the mistaken belief that the present action is proceeding as a class action. (See e.g. , Davis Particularized Compl. SI 1. ) No action will 3 be taken upon these submissions. Lewis Robinson, Larry C. Should Robert Leroy Davis, Jackie McFarland, David W. Verser, Frank E. Beverly, and James E. Robinson wish to pursue an action, they must each file a new complaint.5 The Clerk is DIRECTED to send a copy of the Memorandum Opinion to Plaintiffs and the other interested parties. An appropriate Order shall issue. ML Date: A/trUvjbk. ^} ZOV JjlL Robert E. Payne Senior United States District Judge Richmond, Virginia 5 Any new complaint will proceed as a separate action. plaintiff will be responsible for paying the obtaining leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 4 filing Each fee or
]]>
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.
