Matteson

(PC) Mendoza v. Matteson

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJune 13, 20252:22-cv-01136California4,377 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JOHN MENDOZA No. 2:22-CV-1136-KJM-DMC-P Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS G. MATTESON, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Defendants' motion to sever and dismiss misjoined claims under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 20(a) and 21. See ECF No. 20. Plaintiff has filed an opposition. See ECF No. 24. Defendants have filed a reply. See ECF No. 25. For the reasons discussed below, the Court finds that Defendants' motion should be granted in part and denied in part. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 18(a) limits the joinder of claims, whereas Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a) limits the joinder of parties in a single lawsuit. Rule 18(a) states: “A party asserting a claim . . . may join, as independent or alternative claims, as many claims as it has against an…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.