The opinion of the court was delivered by: A. Richard Caputo United States District Judge
Plaintiff, Darrell N. Tucker, an inmate at the McKean Federal Correctional Institution in Bradford, Pennsylvania, commenced this pro se action by filing a Bivens*fn1 civil rights complaint (Doc. 1, Att. 8) in the United states District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ("Eastern District"). Thereafter, the Eastern District concluded that venue was improper in that Court, and the Eastern District directed the case transferred to this Court by Order dated May 3, 2006. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages for: (1) injuries he allegedly sustained during a bus accident that occurred while Federal Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") officials were transporting him "from the Harrisburg Airport on [a BOP] bus" ((Doc. 1, Att. 8 at 3) ("the bus accident"); (2) injuries he sustained from an assault by another prisoner while he was housed at FCI-Schuylkill ("the assault"); (3) deliberate indifference by prison officials at the Schuylkill Federal Correctional Institution ("FCI-Schuylkill") and the Municipal Detention Center in Brooklyn, New York, to Plaintiff's injuries sustained in the bus accident and the assault; (4) FCI-Schuylkill's failure to discipline Plaintiff's assailant; and (5) theft of his property while housed at FCI-Schuylkill. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages in the amount of $50,450.00 for the personal injuries sustained in the bus accident and the assault, and punitive damages for these injuries and for the Defendants' deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's medical needs. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff's complaint will be dismissed without prejudice, and he will be given the opportunity to file an amended complaint which must comport with the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Failure to do so will result in dismissal of this case with prejudice.
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, andsuch parties are accorded substantial deference and liberality in federal court. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972); Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5 (1980). They are not, however, free to ignore the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff's complaint joins five unrelated claims against apparently unrelated defendant groups. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20, titled Permissive Joinder of Parties, states, in pertinent part:
All persons . . . may be joined in one action as defendants if there is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative, any right to relief in respect of or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences and if any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action. A plaintiff or defendant need not be interested in obtaining or defending against all the relief demanded. Judgment may be given for one or more of the plaintiffs according to their respective rights to relief, and against one or more defendants according to their respective liabilities.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a). The claims in the amended complaint do not arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences, and do not have a question or law or fact common to all defendants.
Rule 20 is a flexible rule that allows for fairness and judicial economy. Rule 20(a) permits joinder in a single action of all persons asserting, or defending against, a joint, several, or alternative right to relief that arises out of the same transaction or occurrence and presents a common question of law or fact. The purpose of the rule is to promote trial convenience and expedite the final determination of disputes, thereby preventing multiple lawsuits. Miller v. Hygrade Food Prods. Corp., 202 F.R.D. 142, 144 (E.D. Pa. 2001) (citing 7 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1652 at 395 (3d ed. 2001)). Instead of developing one generalized test for ascertaining whether or not a particular factual situation constitutes a single transaction or occurrence for purposes of Rule 20, the courts have adopted a case by case approach. Id. When the district court decides pre-trial issues, as whether the particular facts warrant joinder, its decision is subject to review only for abuse of discretion. Mizwicki v. Helwig, 196 F.3d 828, 833 (7th Cir. 1999).
In United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 724 (1966), the Supreme Court held that "[u]nder the Rules, the impulse is toward entertaining the broadest possible scope of action consistent with fairness to the parties; joinder of claims, parties and remedies is strongly encouraged." Consistent with this policy, the transaction and common question requirements prescribed by Rule 20(a) are to be liberally construed in the interest of convenience and judicial economy. Swan v. Ray, 293 F.3d 1252, 1253 (11th Cir. 2002). However, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has noted that the policy of liberal application of Rule 20 is not a license to join any and all claims and defendants in one lawsuit:
Permissive joinder is not, however, applicable in all cases. The rule imposes two specific requisites to the joinder of parties: (1) a right to relief must be asserted by, or against, each plaintiff or defendant relating to or arising out of the same transaction or occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and (2) some question of law or fact common to all the parties must arise in the action.
Mosley v. General Motors Corp., 497 F.2d 1330, 1333 (8th Cir. 1974).
Plaintiff's disparate claims share neither common legal issues nor common facts, and accordingly they are inappropriate for joinder under Rule 20. A careful reading of Plaintiff's allegations shows that the only common thread they all share is that they allegedly occurred while he was incarcerated, and Defendants were BOP employees; the Defendants and the ...