The opinion of the court was delivered by: Yvette Kane, Chief Judge Middle District of Pennsylvania
Dawn Marie Ball ("Ball"), an inmate at the State Correctional Institution at Muncy, Pennsylvania, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Listed as Defendants in the caption of the complaint are thirty-one (31) individuals, all of whom appear to be officials and employees at SCI-Muncy. (Doc. No. 1, Compl.) In the body of the complaint, additional SCI-Muncy employees are also referenced who are not listed in the caption of the complaint. Ball proceeds in forma pauperis in this matter.*fn1 Obligatory preliminary screening reveals that the complaint contains deficiencies which preclude service in its present form.*fn2 Consequently, plaintiff will be directed to file an amended pleading in this action. The court will address Ball's pending motion for counsel, but all other pending motions will be dismissed without prejudice to refile the motions following the submission of an amended complaint in this action.
I. Allegations of the Complaint
In the complaint as filed, Ball sets forth numerous claims which include denial of access to the courts, excessive force, cruel and unusual living conditions, confiscation of property, mail interference and denial of medical care. There are also numerous claims involving the denial of proper nutrition, retaliation and the failure to process grievances. With respect to the issues raised, it is clear that at least some of them involve completely separate incidents and involve different Defendants. For example, one of Ball's claims is with respect to the denial by certain Defendants of her participation in a court hearing involving a paternity matter in March of 2009. Another incident stems from an alleged improper search while Ball was showering, which resulted in the application of excessive force by different Defendants, and Ball's ultimate placement in a "strip cell". The complaint is also peppered with general claims of property confiscation, denial of access to the courts and incidents alleging the denial of medical care by other Defendants. Ball seeks injunctive and compensatory relief.
A. Initial Screening of Complaint
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e) states, in pertinent part, that "[e]ach averment of a pleading shall be simple, concise and direct." Fed. R. Civ. P. 20, states, in pertinent part, the following:
(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 against ... one or more of the defendants according to their respective abilities.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a). Although Rule 20 is a flexible rule that allows fairness and judicial economy, the rule only 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." 7 Charles Allen Wright, Arthur Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure §1652 at 371-72 (1986). "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 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).
As submitted, it is clear that Plaintiff's complaint is in violation of both Rules 8 and 20.
Plaintiff fails to associate each named Defendant with the alleged conduct they engaged in which violated her rights under the Constitution. She also asserts claims that appear to be completely unrelated, and that do not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences. Moreover, it does not appear that the claims all involve an issue of law or fact common to all defendants. While some of the incidents set forth in the complaint are related, such as the improper shower search and excessive force claims arising therefrom, others clearly are not. For example, Plaintiff seeks to litigate the issue of the denial of access to the courts relative to her paternity suit, as well as numerous instances of property confiscation and the denial of medical care.*fn3
Based on the foregoing, it is clear that the instant complaint has numerous procedural deficiencies. However, in the interests of justice to this pro se litigant, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972), Ball will be granted an opportunity to file an amended complaint in this action attempting to state an actionable § 1983 claim against a properly named defendant or defendants in accordance with the above principles. She will be afforded fifteen (15) days within which to do so. In preparing an amended complaint, Ball is advised that she must comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, and set forth at least a modicum of factual specificity, identifying the defendants and the particular conduct of the defendants purported to have harmed her. The "amended complaint must be complete in all respects. It must be a new pleading which stands by itself as an adequate complaint without reference to the complaint already filed." Young v. Keohane, 809 F. Supp. 1185, 1198 (M.D. Pa. 1992).
Further, Ball is strictly cautioned that the amended complaint must comply with Rule 20 and involve only related claims or parties. The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PLRA"), which substantially changed the judicial treatment of civil rights actions by state and federal prisoners, also compels Ball's compliance with Rule 20. Specifically, under the PLRA the full filing fee must ultimately be paid in a non-habeas action. Allowing a ...