George & Co., LLC v. Imagination Entm't Ltd.
507 F.3d 605 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a), a plaintiff may not join unrelated claims against different defendants in a single action. Joinder of defendants is only proper if the claims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence and contain a common question of law or fact.
Facts:
- Larry George, a prisoner in Wisconsin, ordered numerous publications through the mail.
- Prison officials refused to deliver some publications to George, deeming them pornographic or containing gang-related material.
- Officials also withheld a publication George referred to as an 'atlas,' citing concerns that it could be used to plan an escape.
- Another publication, a newsletter from the Jeff Dicks Medical Coalition, was withheld because it encouraged prisoners to solicit money from each other, which is against prison rules.
- George attempted to place advertisements in newspapers, but prison officials refused to allow him to do so.
- On one occasion, George observed food particles on his dinner plate, which he believed posed a health risk.
- George filed administrative protests concerning these and approximately 45 other separate incidents involving 24 different prison employees.
Procedural Posture:
- Larry George filed a single lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin against 24 defendants, asserting approximately 50 distinct claims.
- The district court dismissed some of George's claims on the pleadings.
- The district court subsequently granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all remaining claims.
- George, as the appellant, appealed the district court's decisions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a) permit a plaintiff to join numerous, unrelated claims against multiple, different defendants in a single lawsuit?
Opinions:
Majority - Easterbrook, Chief Judge
No. A plaintiff may not join unrelated claims against different defendants in a single lawsuit. While Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 18(a) allows a party to join multiple claims against a single opposing party, Rule 20(a) governs the joinder of multiple defendants. Rule 20(a) requires that claims asserted against multiple defendants arise from the 'same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences' and involve a 'question of law or fact common to all defendants.' George's complaint, which the court described as a 'buckshot complaint' and a 'mishmash,' improperly joined approximately 50 unrelated claims against 24 different defendants, failing to meet this standard. The court reasoned that allowing such joinder would not only create a procedural morass but would also allow prisoners to circumvent the filing fee requirements and the 'three strikes' rule of the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the procedural requirements for joinder under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, specifically in the context of prisoner litigation. It clarifies that the permissive joinder rules of Boriboune v. Berge do not create an 'anything-goes' approach, and prisoners must adhere to the 'same transaction or occurrence' standard of Rule 20(a) just like any other litigant. The ruling provides district courts with clear authority to sever or dismiss improperly joined 'buckshot' complaints, promoting judicial efficiency and preventing litigants from strategically bundling unrelated claims to avoid filing fees or the consequences of filing frivolous suits under the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
