433 F. App'x 73
3d Cir.2011Background
- 32 prisoners in NJ and MA sue 19 officials across three states seeking release from NJSP isolation wing and asserting multiple constitutional and statutory claims
- District Court dismissed all but Boretsky; Boretsky dismissed without prejudice with leave to amend
- District Court also denied a TRO; plaintiffs sought reconsideration
- Hannon and co-plaintiffs alleged retaliation, lost materials, and impediments to exhausted administrative relief
- Claims spanned segregation conditions, legal-materials access, religious practice, rehabilitative services, and interstate compliance
- Court addressed whether joinder was proper under Rule 20 and whether order was final and appealable
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal is proper on the district court’s joinder dismissal | Boretsky appealed after standing on original complaint | Joinder dismissal not final or appealable | Yes, appeal proper; order final and appealable |
| Whether joinder was properly denied under Rule 20 | Claims could arise from same series of occurrences | No common transaction or occurrence linking all plaintiffs | Joinder improper; district court did not abuse discretion |
| Whether the denial of the temporary restraining order was proper | TRO should be granted on behalf of NJSP inmates | TRO denial appropriate; issues not ripe for consolidation | Denied without prejudice to individual TRO filings |
| Whether the district court properly denied reconsideration | District court misapplied law or facts | No intervening change; no new evidence; no manifest injustice | Affirmed; reconsideration denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Hagan v. Rogers, 570 F.3d 146 (3d Cir. 2009) (jurisdiction and Rule 20 joinder analysis; finality of order on appeal)
- Borelli v. City of Reading, 532 F.2d 950 (3d Cir. 1976) (dismissal without prejudice not final unless plaintiff stands on complaint)
- Hughes v. Long, 242 F.3d 121 (3d Cir. 2001) (standards for affirming on any ground supported by record)
- Max’s Seafood Café ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669 (3d Cir. 1999) (standard for granting reconsideration; need to correct error or prevent injustice)
- Wilchombe v. TeeVee Toons, Inc., 555 F.3d 949 (11th Cir. 2009) (reconsideration standards; can't relitigate old matters)
- Caver v. Trenton, 420 F.3d 243 (3d Cir. 2005) (abuse of discretion standard for reconsideration)