REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

DONALD G. WILKERSON, Magistrate Judge.

This matter has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson by United States District Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), and SDIL-LR 72.1(a) for a Report and Recommendation on the Motion to Dismiss or Sever filed by Defendant Brookhart on August 3, 2018 (Doc. 83). For the reasons set forth below, it is RECOMMENDED that the Motion be DENIED, that the related Motion to Stay (Doc. 86) be DENIED, and that the Court adopt the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.

FINDINGS OF FACT

On July 31, 2017, Plaintiff filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 related to a medical condition that developed on January 28, 2017 while he was incarcerated at the Robinson Correctional Center. This condition turned out to be a number of ulcers that had ruptured simultaneously, causing internal bleeding that required emergency treatment. During the time period of January 28, 2017 to February 27, 2017, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Rice and James, who are medical personnel, were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs when he sought help from them (Counts 1 and 3). Plaintiff further claims that he spoke to Defendant Brookhart, an internal affairs officer, on a number of occasions related to the medical care that he was receiving. During one such conversation, Brookhart allegedly told him that he would help him with his medical issues as long as he didn't name Brookhart in a lawsuit. At a subsequent meeting on April 10, 2017, Brookhart allegedly threatened Plaintiff with retaliation if he filed a lawsuit about these events.

On September 15, 2017, the District Court entered an Order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and delineated the claims that would proceed in this lawsuit. The Count permitted Plaintiff to proceed on two counts of deliberate indifference against Rice and James and one count of First Amendment prior restraint against Brookhart.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Brookhart seeks to dismiss or sever the claim against him (Count 5) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21. The issue of severance, however, has already been decided. As part of the § 1915A screening, the District Court necessarily determined that the claims against the three Defendants should not be severed. See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (directing District Courts to determine whether claims are improperly joined and should be severed).

In any event, a district court has broad discretion under the Rules to dismiss improperly joined defendants and under Rule 21 to sever any claim so long as the claim is "discrete and separate." Rice v. Sunrise Express, Inc., 209 F.3d 1008, 1016 (7th Cir. 2000). "[D]iscrete and separate" means that "one claim must be capable of resolution despite the outcome of the other claim." Gaffney v. Riverboat Servs. of Ind., Inc., 451 F.3d 424, 442 (7th Cir. 2006). In exercising its broad discretion, a court may consider severance if it is "in the interest of judicial economy and to avoid prejudice." Vermillion v. Levenhagen, 604 Fed.Appx. 508, 513 (7th Cir. 2015). While the claims against each Defendant can be determined separately, claims pursuant to § 1983 are typically based upon personal involvement and individual liability, the underlying facts of the claims overlap. In order for Plaintiff to coherently present his claim against Brookhart to a jury, he necessarily would have to present the facts underlying his medical condition. Those facts are also relevant to his claims against Rice and James and cover similar time periods and location. As such, it would be inefficient to sever this matter into two separate lawsuits.

In light of his conclusion, Defendant's request to stay discovery should likewise be denied.

RECOMMENDATIONS

For the foregoing reasons, it is RECOMMENDED the Motion to Dismiss or Sever filed by Defendant Brookhart on August 3, 2018 (Doc. 83) be DENIED, that the related Motion to Stay (Doc. 86) be DENIED, and that the Court adopt the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law.

NOTICE REGARDING OBJECTIONS

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and SDIL-LR 73.1(b), any party may serve and file written OBJECTIONS to this Report and Recommendation/Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law within fourteen (14) days after service. Failure to file such OBJECTIONS shall result in a waiver of the right to appeal all issues, both factual and legal, which are addressed in the Report and Recommendation/Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Video Views, Inc. v. Studio 21, Ltd. and Joseph Sclafani, 797 F.2d 538 (7th Cir. 1986).

You are not to file an appeal as to the Report and Recommendation/Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. An appeal is inappropriate until after the District Judge issues an Order either affirming or reversing the Report and Recommendation/Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of the U.S. Magistrate Judge.