United States District Court, D. Connecticut
ORDER RE AMENDED COMPLAINT AND MOTION FOR TRO
Preliminary Statement
Kari
A. Dooley United States District Judge
Plaintiff,
James Pena (“Pena”), currently confined at
Corrigan-Radgowski Correctional Institution in Uncasville,
Connecticut, filed this complaint pro se under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. In the Complaint, Pena named four
defendants, Scott Semple, John Aldi, A. Santiago, and Miaga,
and challenged his confinement as a pretrial detainee. By
Initial Review Order, Doc. No. 7, filed on March 22, 2019,
the Court dismissed the Fourteenth Amendment claim regarding
placement in the Security Risk Group (“SRG”)
Program, and the Sixth Amendment claim for denial of access
to the courts. The Court permitted the case to proceed on
Pena's Fourth Amendment privacy claim and Fourteenth
Amendment conditions of confinement claim relating to his SRG
confinement as a pretrial detainee. Id. at 10.
Pena
has filed an Amended Complaint in which he adds six new
defendants, SRG Coordinator Papoosha, Warden Cocerralla,
Deputy Warden Cotta, SRG Unit Manager Michaud, DRI Officer
Nemeth, and Commissioner Cook. Pena states that he was
sentenced on November 28, 2018. Doc. No. 7, ¶ 39. He
seeks to add claims concerning his time as a sentenced
prisoner, specifically, Eighth Amendment claims for
unconstitutional conditions of confinement, failure to
protect, supervisory liability, retaliation, and deliberate
indifference to safety. Pena also has filed a motion for
preliminary injunctive relief regarding his current place of
confinement. For the following reasons, the Amended Complaint
is DISMISSED and the motion for injunctive relief is DENIED.
Amended
Complaint
Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2) permits the joinder of
multiple defendants in a single action if the claims
“aris[e] out of the same transaction, occurrence, or
series of transactions and occurrences”; and “any
question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise
in the action.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 20(a)(2). Whether the
claims “constitute the same transaction or occurrence
under … Rule 20(a) is approached on a case by case
basis.” Kehr ex rel. Kehr v. Yamaha Motor Corp.,
U.S.A., 596 F.Supp.2d 821, 826 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (citation
omitted). In the Rule 13 context, [1] the Second Circuit has
observed that whether a counterclaim arises out of the same
transaction as the original claim depends upon the logical
relationship between the claims and whether the
“essential facts of the various claims are so logically
connected that considerations of judicial economy and
fairness dictate that all the issues be resolved in one
lawsuit.” Harris v. Steinem, 571 F.2d 119, 123
(2d Cir. 1978).
Here,
Pena's factual allegations and claims arising therefrom
are separated into two distinct timeframes - when he was a
pretrial detainee and when he was a sentenced prisoner.
The six
newly added defendants are not alleged to have had any
involvement with Pena while he was a pretrial detainee. The
allegations against them begin after Pena was a sentenced
prisoner. As Pena's claims against the new defendants do
not arise from the same occurrences, Pena's confinement
as a pretrial detainee, Pena has not satisfied the first
criterion of Rule 20. In addition, the claims of sentenced
prisoners are considered under the Eighth Amendment rather
than the Fourteenth. And although the analyses are similar,
they present distinct questions of law. Accordingly, the
claims arising out of Pena's incarceration as a sentenced
prisoner are improperly joined in this action in violation of
Rule 20.[2] See also Castellano v. Trump, No.
3:17-cv-381 (MPS), 2017 WL 4401451, at *1 (D. Conn. Sept. 29,
2017) (purpose of amended complaint is to clarify or amplify
existing causes of action, not to add new causes of action)
(citation omitted).
In
addition, each set of claims would require different
witnesses and proof at trial which could sew confusion into a
jury trial. See Cooke v. Deschaine, No.
3:16-cv-138(SRU), 2016 WL 3579070, at *4 n.2 (D. Conn. June
29, 2016) (noting that different proof and witnesses required
for unrelated claims could confuse the jury and prejudice the
defendants). The Amended Complaint is dismissed without
prejudice. Pena may assert these new claims in a separate
action.
Motion
for Temporary Restraining Order
Pena
also has filed a motion for temporary restraining order, Doc.
No. 13. Preliminarily, the court observes that he includes
the captions for two cases on the motion. A proper case
caption includes the name and docket number of only one case.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a) (case caption includes
“the court's name, a title, [and] a file
number” not multiple file numbers). If Pena wants to
file motions in multiple cases, he must submit separate
motions for each case, each motion bearing the caption for a
single case. See Bridgeforth v. Zaid, No.
08-CV-6438Fe, 2008 WL 5381292 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2008)
(cautioning plaintiff that attempting to address multiple
cases in a single correspondence does not comply with Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 7, 8, and 10, and directing him to
file separate motions for each request made in a different
case).
In
addition, preliminary injunctive relief, whether in the form
of an injunction or restraining order, is available only to
redress injuries related to the conduct underlying the
complaint. See DeBeers Consol. Mines Ltd. v. United
States, 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945) (preliminary injunction
appropriate to grant intermediate relief of “the same
character as that which may be granted finally, ” but
inappropriate where the injunction “deals with a matter
wholly outside the issues in the suit”); Trowell v.
Upstate Corr. Facility, No. 9:16-CV-0639(MAD/TWD), 2016
WL 7156559, at *7 (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 7, 2016) (“To prevail
on a motion for preliminary injunctive relief, the moving
party must establish a relationship between the injury
claimed in the motion and the conduct giving rise to the
complaint.” (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted)).
As
explained above, this case concerns Pena's confinement in
the SRG program as a pretrial detainee. It does not concern
his confinement as a sentenced inmate or any threats to his
safety as a sentenced inmate. Thus, any relief requested in
the motion is not related to the claims in this case. The
motion for temporary restraining order is therefore denied.
Orders
For
these reasons, the Amended Complaint is
DISMISSED. The operative complaint remains
the original complaint, as permitted to go forward in the
Initial Review Order. The Clerk is directed to terminate
Coordinator Papoosha, Warden Cocerralla, Deputy Warden Cotta,
...