order Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief Order on Motion to Amend/Correct Fri 12:58 PM ORDER granting in part and denying in part 60 Motion for Leave to Add Joinder of Additional Plaintiffs and for Leave to Add Facts to the Complaint; granting 62 Motion to Amend 60 Motion. Signed by Judge Jackson L. Kiser on 4/8/16.

1. Page 1 of 1
CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:vawd
Orders on Motions
4:15-cv-Q0037-JLK-RSB Sutherlin v. Smith et al
CASREF, PROSE
U.S. District Court Western District of Virginia
Notice of Electronic Filing
The following transaction was entered on 4/8/2016 at 12:58 PM EDT and filed on 4/8/2016 Case Name:
Sutherlin v. Smith et al
Case Number: 4:15-cv-00Q37-JLK-RSB Filer:
Document Number: 73 Docket Text:
ORDER granting in part and denying in part [60] Motion for Leave to Add Joinder of
Additional Plaintiffs and for Leave to Add Facts to the Complaint; granting [62] Motion to
Amend [60] Motion. Signed by Judge Jackson L. Kiser on 4/8/16. (ham)
4:15-cv-00037-JLK-RSB Notice has been electronically mailed to:
James A. L. Daniel JDaniel@dmklawfirm.com, Rgillie@dmklawfirm.com, dbassett@dmklawfirm.com, kco der
@dmklawfirm .com
Martha G. White Medley mmedley@dmklawfirm.com, rgillie@dmklawfirm.com TylerBrent Gammon
bgammon@dmklawfirm.com 4:15-cv-00037-JLK-RSB Notice has been delivered by other means to:
Alvin L. Sutherlin, Jr 505 Jefferson St.
1st Floor
Danville, VA 24541
The following document(s) are associated with this transaction:
Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp:
[STAMP dcecf$tamp_ID=l052918722 [Date=4/8/2016] [FileNumber=2589972-0]
[9622d 1691 eb512ff8cc 12919afc2b06645491 de 169d3494c 12ace7f8ec998daefd 17
24ae4463d363327c5aaa39b7200030edc8fb687136a2c5578dc56ac6c265]]
https://ecf.vawd.circ4.dcn/cgi-bin/Dispatch.pl7785569786977059 4/8/2016

3. Case No. 4:15-cv-00037
v.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
DANVILLE DIVISION
ALVIN L. SUTHERLIN,JR.,
Plaintiff,
ORDER
SERGEANT H.S. RICHARDSON,
OFFICER D.C. LANCASTER, and
OFFICER L.D. LAND,
Defendants.
By: Hon. Jackson L. Kiser
Senior United States District Judge
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs motion to add plaintiffs and for leave to add facts
to the Complaint (Pl.’s Mot. for Leave to Add Joinder of Additional Plaintiffs (hereinafter “Joinder
Mot.”), Mar. 11, 2016 [ECF No. 60]) and on Plaintiffs motion to amend that motion (Amend Pl.’s
Mot. for Leave to Add Joinder of Additional Plaintiffs (hereinafter “Am. Joinder Mot”), Mar. 17,
2016 [ECF No. 62]).'
By way of the latter, Plaintiff would amend his original motion to clarify that he seeks to
accomplish permissive joinder and to correct several typographical and grammatical errors. (Compare
Am. Joinder Mot. at pg. 2, with Joinder Mot. at pg. 2.) Leave to amend is to be “freely” given. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Detecting no prejudice to Defendants, I hereby GRANT this motion [ECF No.
62] to amend the original motion [ECF No. 60]. I consider, in turn, the requests for added plaintiffs
and for added facts.
1 Although the motions’ titles mention only the joinder request,each motion’s body clarifies that Plaintiff also
intends to amend the Complaint’s factual allegations.

4. 2
I. MOTION TO ADDPLAITIFFS
Plaintiff seeks to add Brittney Logan and Michele Owens to accompany his Complaint’s
allegations of their violated rights—the search and seizure of Logan’s person and the entry into Owens’
apartment—during the search of his residence.2
Rule 20(a) “permits the joinder[3]
of persons whose presence is procedurally convenient but is
not regarded as essential to the court’s complete disposition of any particular claim.” See 7 Charles
Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1652, at 397
(2007). “Rule 20 should be read in conjunction with Rule 21,” 4 Moore’s Federal Practice § 20App.l00
(Matthew Bender 3d ed.), which is captioned “Misjoinder and Nonjoinder of Parties” and reads as
follows: “Misjoinder of parties is not a ground for dismissing an action. On motion or on its own, the
court may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party. The court may also sever any claim against a
party.” “As its caption indicates, Rule 21 is a mechanism for remedying either the misjoinder^ or
nonjoinder^ of parties.” 7 Wright, Miller & Kane, supra, § 1683, at 475.
2 Understood in light of my ruling on Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion, Plaintiff seeks to add Logan and Owens
so the Court may address the claims on which they would have standing as well as the claims on which he has
standing.
3 Joinder of parties is “[t]he combination of two or more persons or entities as plaintiffs or defendants in a civil
lawsuit.” Joinder of Parties, Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014).
4 “Misjoinder is [t]he improper union of parties in a civil case.” Sutherlin v. Smith, No. 4:15-CV-00037, 2016 WL
676581, at *8 (W.D. Va. Feb. 17, 2016) (alteration in original) (quoting Russell v. Chesapeake Appalachia. LLC,
305 F.R.D. 78, 81 (M.D. Pa. 2015)).
Plaintiff invokes the wrong procedural mechanism. He does not seek to remedy a misjoinder
or nonjoinder,1
and I cannot add Logan or Owens by way of his motion. I hereby DENY Plaintiffs
1 Neither Logan nor Owens is a necessary party. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)(1).

5. motion to add Logan and Owens as co-plaintiffs.
By seeking to add more parties to the action, Plaintiff is undertaking to act on behalf of Logan
and Owens. This he cannot do, even with the consent of Logan and Owens. Plaintiff is not an attorney.
He can act on his own behalf but not for others. If Logan and Owens want to join the case, they must
act for themselves or get an attorney to do so.
II. MOTION TO ADD FACTS
By way of amendment, Plaintiff would add facts largely repetitive of those stated in his
Complaint. He would also add, “The defendant Officer L. D. Land compounded this illegally
fh
[sic] action by giving perjured testimony in the Circuit Court of Danville on January 24 , 2014. This
action has caused a violation of Plaintiffs [sic] Civil Rights under the 14th Amendment —United
States Bill of Rights.” (Am. Joinder Mot. at pg. 2.)
A “court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires,” Fed. R. Civ. P.
15(a)(2); however, it may deny leave “when the amendment would be prejudicial to the opposing
party, the moving party has acted in bad faith, or the amendment would be futile,” Simmons v. United
Mortg. & Loan Inv„ LLC, 634 F.3d 754, 769 (4th Cir. 2011).
Amendment to repeat facts would be futile, and I hereby DENY the motion to amend insofar
as it would do so. Respecting the allegation of Officer Land’s perjury, Defendants suggest no
prejudice, bad faith, or futility in its addition to the Complaint. I hereby GRANT Plaintiffs motion as
to this allegation and consider it to be a part of the Complaint.
The clerk is directed to forward a copy of this Order to Plaintiff, Brittney Logan, Michele
Owens,and Defendants’ counsel of record.
Entered this 8th
day of April, 2016.

6. 4
s/Jackson L. Kiser
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5 Nonjoinder is “[t]he failure to bring a person who is a necessary party into a lawsuit.” Nonjoinder, Black’s Law
Dictionary, supra; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 19.