Welch v. Baca

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 KENTRELL D. WELCH, Case No. 3:20-cv-00079-MMD-CLB

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 ISIRIDO BACA, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 I. SUMMARY 12 Pro se Plaintiff Kentrell Welch, an inmate in the custody of the Nevada Department 13 of Corrections (“NDOC”), filed a civil rights complaint under 42. U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 14 34 (“Complaint”).) On November 7, 2021, Welch filed a motion for leave to file a first 15 amended complaint (“FAC”). (ECF No. 147 (“Motion”).) Before the Court is the Report and 16 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Carla L. Baldwin. (ECF No. 180 17 (“R&R” or “Recommendation”).) The R&R recommends that Welch’s Motion be denied. 18 Welch timely filed an objection to the R&R. (ECF No. 183 (“Objection”).)1 Because the 19 Court agrees with Judge Baldwin, and as further explained below, the Court overrules 20 Welch’s Objection, adopts the R&R in full, and denies Welch’s Motion. 21 II. BACKGROUND 22 The Court incorporates by reference Judge Baldwin’s recitation of the factual 23 background provided in the R&R, which the Court adopts here. (ECF No. 180 at 1-3.) 24 III. LEGAL STANDARD 25 A. Review of the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation 26 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 27 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party 28 2 required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and 3 recommendation] to which objection is made.” Id. The Court’s review is thus de novo 4 because Welch filed an Objection (ECF No. 183). 5 IV. DISCUSSION 6 Following a de novo review of the R&R and other records in this case, the Court 7 finds good cause to accept and adopt Judge Baldwin’s R&R in full. 8 Judge Baldwin recommends that Welch’s Motion be denied because the proposed 9 FAC would cause undue delay of the litigation, prejudice Defendants, and many of Welch’s 10 additional claims are futile. (ECF No. 180 at 4.) That is because the proposed FAC violates 11 several Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Rules 8, 10, and 20. (Id. at 4-5.) 12 Welch’s allegations against 19 new defendants do not arise out of the same transactions 13 and allowing these claims against 19 new defendants would alter the nature of this case. 14 (Id. at 5-6.) 15 In his Objection, Welch appears to make several arguments.2 (ECF No. 183 at 3- 16 5.) Welch’s main arguments are the following. Citing Dooley v. Wetzel, 957 F.3d 366 (3d 17 Cir. 2020), Welch appears to first argue that his additional claims arise out of the same 18 occurrence in that the events all took place at Northern Nevada Correctional Center 19 (“NNCC”) from September 2019 until May 2020. (Id. at 3.) Welch also appears to argue 20 that he should be afforded counsel due to exceptional circumstances, his lack of 21 understanding, and the complexities of the issues in this case. (Id. at 4.) Given Welch’s 22 pro se status, the Court will summarily address these two arguments. 23 Welch may bring claims against multiple defendants in his proposed FAC, but in 24 order to do so, Welch must meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25 20(a)(2). Under Rule 20(a)(2), at least one claim against all defendants must “aris[e] out 26 of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences” and raise 27

28 2Because Welch’s arguments are not clear, the Court is required to construe the arguments as stated herein. 2 he asserts several new claims that include, but are not limited to: religious rights, medical 3 care, Americans with Disabilities Act violations, racial discrimination, illegal mail fraud and 4 tempering, supervisory liability, conspiracy, unconstitutional grievance procedures, and 5 other instances of retaliation. (ECF No. 147-1.) But none of these claims meet the 6 requirements of Rule 20(a)(2). Nor do these claims arise out of the same transaction 7 merely because they occurred at NNCC. Nor is the Dooley case out of the Third Circuit 8 binding on this Court. As such, this argument lacks merit.3 9 Moreover, Welch’s argument that he should be afforded counsel does not relate to 10 why he should be afforded leave to file his proposed FAC. The record reflects that Welch 11 has previously made motions for appointment of counsel. (See ECF Nos. 97, 107.) It has 12 already been determined that exceptional circumstances do not exists in this case to 13 warrant the appointment of counsel. (See ECF No. 120.) Because Welch has not 14 presented new evidence to suggest otherwise, the determination remains the same. To 15 the extent that Welch’s argument is a request for appointment of counsel, that request is 16 denied. 17 In sum, the Court is unconvinced by Welch’s arguments. The Court finds good 18 cause to accept and adopt Judge Baldwin’s R&R in full. 19 V. CONCLUSION 20 It is therefore ordered that Plaintiff Kentrell Welch’s Objection (ECF No. 183) is 21 overruled. 22 It is further ordered that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Carla 23 L. Baldwin (ECF No. 180) is accepted and adopted in full. 24 It is further ordered that Welch’s motion for leave to file a first amended complaint 25 (ECF No. 147) is denied. 26

27 3In light of Welch’s pro se status, the Court notes that the denial of Welch’s Motion does not prevent him from filing the new claims asserted in his proposed FAC in a separate 28 new action. 1 It is further ordered that Welch’s Complaint (ECF No. 34) remains the operative 2 || complaint in this action. 3 DATED THIS 4" Day of April 2022. 4 5 ee 6 LPO 7 MIRANEA DU 9 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28