Gregory McKeithen v. C.O. Cooper, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania grants defendants’ motion for partial dismissal in Gregory McKeithen’s pro se § 1983 action. The court dismisses the malicious prosecution, fraudulent representation, and First Amendment retaliation claims, and dismisses claims against Defendant Cooper as improperly joined under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20. The court concludes that amendment of the retaliation claim would be futile and directs that any claims against Cooper be pursued in a separate action.

Holdings

1. Claims against multiple defendants may be joined only when at least one claim against all defendants arises from the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences and presents a common question of law or fact. The claims against Cooper were improperly joined because they arose from separate events at a different prison, involved different personnel, and were based on different factual and legal theories.
2. The malicious prosecution and fraudulent representation claims were dismissed because McKeithen expressly conceded that they could be dismissed.
3. The complaint failed to state a First Amendment retaliation claim because participation in a physical altercation with a correctional officer was not constitutionally protected activity.
4. Leave to amend was not required because amendment of the retaliation claim would be futile.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the claims against C.O. Cooper arising from alleged retaliation and conditions of confinement at SCI-Benner Township were properly joined with claims arising from an alleged use of force by different officers at SCI-Rockview.
2. Whether the malicious prosecution and fraudulent representation claims should be dismissed after the plaintiff conceded dismissal.
3. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged a First Amendment retaliation claim when the alleged protected activity was a physical altercation with a correctional officer.
4. Whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to amend the retaliation claim.

Disposition

dismissed