Opinion
CASE NO. 7:14CV00159
05-19-2014
UHURU-SEKOU OBATAIYE-ALLAH, Plaintiff, v. HAROLD CLARK, ET AL., Defendant(s).
MEMORANDUM OPINION
By: Glen E. Conrad
Chief United States District Judge
By opinion and order entered May 13, 2014, the court denied plaintiff's motions to amend this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and denied his motions for interlocutory injunctive relief. In a motion likely mailed before plaintiff received that order, plaintiff seeks to amend to bring additional claims related to the amendments and motions for injunctive relief which the court has already denied. For the reasons stated in the order of May 13, 2014, the court also denies plaintiff's current motion. An appropriate order will issue this day.
The court denied plaintiff's prior amendments because the proposed amended claims were not properly joined to the claims raised in his initial complaint. Under Rule 18(a), which governs joinder of claims, a plaintiff may bring multiple claims, related or not, in a lawsuit against a single defendant. However, in order to name other defendants in the same lawsuit, the plaintiff must satisfy Rule 20(a)(2), which governs joinder of parties. Rule 20(a)(2) permits joinder of multiple defendants only where the right to relief asserted against them arises out of the same transaction or occurrence and concerns a common question of law or fact. Plaintiff's current proposed amendments do not comply with these rules. Plaintiff is also advised that multiple amendments to a complaint do not comply with the spirit of Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and should be reserved for claims which could not reasonably have been presented in his initial complaint. Plaintiff will not be permitted to build his case through multiple, unnecessary amendments.
The Clerk is directed to send copies of this memorandum opinion and accompanying order to plaintiff.
__________
Chief United States District Judge