The opinion of the court was delivered by: (Magistrate Judge Carlson)
(Magistrate Judge Carlson)
: (Magistrate Judge Carlson)
(Magistrate Judge Carlson)
The plaintiff, William Victor, is a state inmate who currently has four civil actions pending with this court. These civil actions relate to incidents and episodes occurring at different times at various state correctional institutions throughout Pennsylvania. Recently, the plaintiff filed a motion, styled "Motion for Emergency Relief, Monetary Sanctions, Hearing and to Compel," in each of these four civil actions. Liberally construed, the motion makes two claims, one new and one old.
First, the motion contains a claim relating to the oldest of Victor's cases, and alleges that the Department of Corrections has violated the terms of a settlement agreement with Victor in Victor v. Lawler, No. 3:08-CV-1374. Victor has already previously filed a motion in this lawsuit seeking this precise relief. (Doc. 548.) The Department of Corrections was ordered to respond to this motion, (Doc. 572), but has not yet filed a response.
Second, the motion presents new allegations by the plaintiff, specifically asserting that some of Victor's property was damaged during a recent transfer of Victor to SCI Forest. With respect to these new allegations, Victor's motion indicates that he has begun, but not completed, administrative grievances which could provide him with a post-deprivation remedy for this lost and damaged property. To the extent that Victor attempts to bring these new claims regarding damaged property in his current lawsuits, the claims run afoul of two separate legal obstacles. First, these motions involve new matters which bear no temporal, topical, legal or logical relationship to the allegations set forth in these prior complaints. Victor's efforts to join these wholly unrelated matters in this lawsuit violate the rules governing joinder of claims in civil litigation. Those rules provide, in part, that:
Person[s] . . . may be joined in one action as defendants if:
(A) 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 or occurrences; and
(B) any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2)(emphasis added). In this case, it cannot be said that these new allegations arise out of the same transaction, occurrence or series of transactions set forth in his prior complaints. Quite the contrary, Victor's motions recite disparate acts, allegedly committed by different actors at divergent times and places. "[G]iven the hodgepodge of claims raised in the [motion]," Boretsky v. Governor of New Jersey, 433 F. App'x 73, 77(3d Cir. May 25, 2011), this ...