United States District Court, D. Connecticut
ORDER RE AMENDED COMPLAINT
A. DOOLEY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Junior Jumpp (“Jumpp”), currently incarcerated at
New Haven Correctional Center, filed this complaint pro
se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 5, 2019, the
Court entered an Initial Review Order permitting the case to
proceed on claims for deliberate indifference to safety,
deliberate indifference to medical needs, and retaliation.
Doc. No. 6 at 14. Those claims all arose from a September
2019 assault and threats by correctional staff of additional
filed an Amended Complaint seeking to add two new defendants.
Although the Amended Complaint was received by the Court on
December 4, 2019, it was not entered on the docket until
December 6, 2019, the day after the Initial Review Order was
issued. The Court reviews the Amended Complaint to determine
whether the additional claims will proceed in this action.
11, 2019, Jumpp was seen by Dentist Nancy J. Simonow and
Dental Assistant Kim Fletchette for an on-going tooth issue,
and for replacement of a filling that had fallen out a few
months earlier. Doc. No. 10 ¶ 21 They filled his tooth
and told Jumpp that he should feel better when the medication
wore off. Id. ¶ 22. The next day, Jumpp
experienced severe dental pain that prevented him from eating
or sleeping. Id. ¶ 23. He submitted a request
to the dental unit to be re-checked. Id. ¶ 24.
On July 17, 2019, he submitted a second request but still was
not seen. Id. ¶ 25. On July 21, 2019, fearing
an infection, Jumpp wrote specifically to defendant
Fletchette. He still has not been seen. Id. ¶
Rule of Civil Procedure 20 permits joinder of multiple
defendants in one action only if “any right to relief
is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the
alternative with respect to or arising 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). “What will constitute the same transaction or
occurrence under the first prong of 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). As the Second Circuit has
observed in the Rule 13 context,  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).
seeks to add new defendants and a distinct claim in his
Amended Complaint, a claim relating to dental treatment in
July 2019. This claim is wholly unrelated to the claims
contained in the originally filed Complaint. Accordingly,
there are no questions of law or fact common to all claims
and the claims and defendants are improperly joined in this
action in violation of Rule 20. See Wilson v. McKenna,
No. 3:12-cv-1581(VLB), 2015 WL 1471908, at *6 (D. Conn. Mar.
31, 2015) (advising plaintiff that improperly joined claims
must be pursued in separate actions).
Court may sever and dismiss improperly joined claims.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 (permitting the court to drop
a party or sever a claim where the parties have been
misjoined). Here, the court dropd defendants Simonow and
Frechette, severd the deliberate indifference to dental needs
claims against defendants Simonow and Frechette and considers
only the claims listed in the Initial Review Order going
forward. If Jumpp wishes to pursue the severed claims, he
must do so by filing a separate lawsuit.
claims for deliberate indifference to dental needs against
defendants Simonow and Fletchette are severed from this
action. Jumpp may pursue them in a separate case. The Clerk
is directed to terminate Dr. Simonow and Dental Assistant
Frechette as defendants in this case.
case will proceed only on the claims identified in the
Initial Review Order, Doc. No. 6.