Cdcr

FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 30 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S . CO U RT OF AP PE A LS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOHN WESLEY WILLIAMS, No. 10-15139

Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:09-cv-00784-GGH

v.

MEMORANDUM *

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION,

et al.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Gregory G. Hollows, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted January 12, 2012 San Francisco, California

Before: WALLACE and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and RAKOFF, District Judge.**

Plaintiff-Appellant John Wesley Williams appeals from the district court's

dismissal of his pro se prisoner complaint for improper joinder of parties.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Jed S. Raµoff, Senior United States District Judge for the Southern District of New Yorµ, sitting by designation. Williams's complaint brings several causes of action against fifteen…

MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiff-Appellant John Wesley Williams appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his pro se prisoner complaint for improper joinder of parties. Williams’s complaint brings several causes of action against fifteen different defendants, arising from events that allegedly occurred between August 2006 to March 2007, while Williams was incarcerated. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of this case, we repeat only those facts necessary to address the issues raised on appeal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm in part, and reverse and remand in part.

We reverse the district court’s dismissal of Williams’s complaint for improper joinder. Defendants may be joined in an action 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); Coughlin v. Rogers, 130 F.3d *674 1348, 1351 (9th Cir.1997). Williams’s pro se complaint, which we…

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I concur with my colleagues that the district court’s dismissal of the complaint in its entirety for misjoinder was not proper. However, I respectfully dissent from their view that Williams’s complaint met the joinder test as to each defendant.

The proper starting point for a joinder analysis is to begin with the first named defendant and join only those claims that can properly be joined to that defendant’s claims. See Coughlin v. Rogers, 130 F.3d 1348, 1350 (9th Cir.1997). Because CD-R was properly dismissed on immunity grounds, the first named defendant is Grannis.

Grannis is implicated in almost all of the incidents in the complaint based on inmate grievances that Williams filed. But the complaint does not allege that Grannis reviewed a grievance against defendant Holmes. Because the claims against Grannis and Holmes are unrelated, I would affirm the dismissal of the claims against defendant Holmes for misjoinder.