Robert K. Decker v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted April 13, 2023 *
Decided April 14, 2023
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge
THOMAS L. KIRSCH II, Circuit Judge
No. 22-2475
ROBERT K. DECKER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Southern District of
Indiana, Terre Haute Division.
No. 2:21-cv-00253-JPH-MJD
James Patrick Hanlon,
Judge.
O R D E R
Robert Decker, a federal prisoner, challenges the denials of his motions to amend
his complaint seeking monetary and injunctive relief related to his placement in the
Communications Management Unit at his prison. The district court denied the motions,
* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and
record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not
significantly aid the court. FED. R. A PP. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with FED. R. A PP. P. 32.1

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 22-2475 Page 2
concluding that Decker improperly sought to join an unrelated claim against the
United States in the suit. We affirm.
In his original complaint, Decker sued various prison officials regarding the
Communications Management Unit at Federal Correctional Institution, Terre Haute.
The Communications Management Unit is a self-contained housing area where inmates
are socially isolated and denied access to some prison programing. Inmates’ visits, mail,
and phone calls are also subjected to more scrutiny. See 28 C.F.R. § 540.200. Decker
alleged that the lack of a periodic review of his placement in the unit violated his due
process rights; that the creation of the Communications Management Unit—without
comment or notice—violated the Administrative Procedures Act; and that a Federal
Bureau of Prisons employee denied him access to the courts by refusing to allow the
notarization of documents he needed for his state-court proceedings.
The district court screened Decker’s complaint, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a),
dismissed most claims, but allowed him to proceed on his due process and APA claims.
The court also allowed him to join the Federal Bureau of Prisons as a defendant.
Decker sought leave to amend his complaint to add a claim against the
United States for failing to provide access to state-law resources. The court denied
Decker’s motion to amend. The court acknowledged that Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 18(a) allows a plaintiff to combine unrelated claims against a single party,
but Decker’s proposed damages claim against the United States did not relate to his
injunctive relief claims in his original complaint against the Bureau of Prisons. Such
unrelated claims, the court explained, belonged in a separate lawsuit, for which a
separate filing fee would have to be paid.
Decker moved to reconsider the denial of his motion to amend. He asked the
court to dismiss his APA claim as moot (because he was awaiting transfer out of the
Communications Management Unit) and allow him to proceed instead on his access-to-
courts claim against the United States. The court dismissed the APA claim, reaffirmed
its denial of Decker’s motion to amend his complaint, and ordered him to show cause
why the suit should not be dismissed as moot in light of his pending transfer from the
unit.
Decker did not respond to the show-cause order and instead filed another
motion for leave to amend to add an access-to-courts claim against the United States.
The court denied that motion and dismissed Decker’s remaining claim as moot.

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 22-2475 Page 3
Three months later, after his transfer to another prison’s Communications
Management Unit, Decker moved to reinstate his APA claim. Because Decker’s appeal
by this time was pending, the court denied the motion for lack of jurisdiction.
On appeal, Decker challenges the denial of his motions to amend and have the
United States joined as a party. He argues that his proposed access-to-courts damages
claim against the United States involved the same allegations he had made in his
original complaint.
The court correctly denied Decker leave to amend his complaint. Even if Decker
had made allegations in his original complaint regarding an access-to-courts damages
claim against the United States, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 would preclude
adding such a claim to a suit seeking injunctive relief against the Bureau of Prisons
under the APA and the due process clause. A plaintiff may join multiple defendants
only when the claims arise from the same set of events and share a common question of
law or fact. Mitchell v. Kallas, 895 F.3d 492, 502–03 (7th Cir. 2018) (citing FED. R. C IV.
P. 20(a)(2)(A)). Multiple claims against a single defendant are allowable, but “Claim A
against Defendant 1 should not be joined with unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2.”
George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). The United States is a separate party
from the Bureau of Prisons. The court here acted well within its discretion by refusing
to let Decker join unrelated claims against different defendants.
Finally, with regard to the denial of his motion to reinstate his APA claim for
injunctive relief, Decker says that his case now presents a live controversy because he
has since been transferred to a Communications Management Unit at another prison.
But we cannot review this argument on appeal. Because he filed the motion more than
28 days after judgment, the court properly considered it under Rule 60(b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, Word Seed Church v. Village of Homewood, 43 F.4th 688, 690
(7th Cir. 2022), and he did not file—as he must—a separate notice of appeal from the
denial of that motion. United States v. Bonk, 967 F.3d 643, 649–50 (7th Cir. 2020); Smith v.
Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 248 (1992).
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --