The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Vanaskie
Plaintiff, Batsaihan Purveegiin, commenced this proseaction by filing a civil rights complaint pursuant to the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claimed that: (1) he was previously detained illegally at Pike County Correctional Facility ("PCCF") in Lords Valley, Pennsylvania; and (2) while he was held at PCCF, Defendants interfered with his mail, denied access to adequate legal materials, denied adequate medical care, and restricted his religious worship. Plaintiff sought declaratory, injunctive and compensatory relief.
In a Memorandum and Order dated June 6, 2006, this Court determined that Plaintiff's complaint failed to comply with the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8, 10 and 20. (Dkt. Entry 27.) The Court directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within twenty (20) days from the date of the Order. The Memorandum and Order forewarned Plaintiff that failure to timely file an amended complaint that complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure would result in closure of the case.
Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on June 16, 2006. The amended pleading is 91 pages long and names 15 Defendants. The issue before the Court at this time is whether Plaintiff cured the pleading deficiencies of the original pleading. Finding that Plaintiff has failed to do so, the Court will dismiss this action.
Pro se litigants, such as Plaintiff, are accorded substantial deference 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. Although Purveegiin has now complied with Rule 10(b)'s requirement of setting forth allegations in separately numbered paragraphs, he has not adhered to the minimal demands of Rules 8 and 20.
Rule 8(a) requires a short and plain statement of the Plaintiff's claims. Purveegiin's prolix amended complaint, which is 70 pages longer than his original complaint, does not meet the mandates of this rule. Defendants would be hard pressed to form a meaningful response to this pleading.
Nor has Plaintiff heeded this Court's admonition about joining unrelated claims and parties in one complaint. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20, titled Permissive Joinder of Parties, in pertinent part, reads:
(a) Permissive Joinder. 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.
Like the initial Complaint, Plaintiff's ninety-one (91) page Amended Complaint names multiple defendants and contains numerous claims concerning unconnected issues, such as inadequate diet, inadequate medical care, and infringement of other interests protected by the United States Constitution.*fn1 The claims against Defendants do not arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences, and they lack a question of law or fact common to all defendants.
As previously explained to Plaintiff (Dkt. Entry 27), Rule 20 is a flexible rule that allows for ...