## Facts

- Multiple members of the Kedra family and a son-in-law sued the City of Philadelphia, the Police Commissioner, homicide-division supervisors, and numerous officers and detectives.
- Plaintiffs alleged an extended course of police misconduct from December 1975 through February or March 1977, described as a continuing pattern directed at the family.
- On December 22, 1975, plaintiffs alleged that Rozanski and two Kedra sons were arrested at gunpoint without probable cause, taken to police headquarters, separated, and questioned for about seventeen hours.
- Plaintiffs alleged they were not advised of constitutional rights, were denied requested counsel, and were physically assaulted and threatened during interrogation.
- Plaintiffs further alleged an unlawful search of the Kedra home about a week later, detentions of family members, additional beatings, and continued arrests and harassment over subsequent months.
- Plaintiffs brought federal civil-rights claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986, alleging violations of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and sought compensatory and punitive damages.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b), challenging (among other points) joinder under Rule 20(a), minors’ ability to sue through a parent, and the sufficiency of allegations that defendants acted under color of state law.

## Issues

1. Whether the multiple plaintiffs and defendants could be joined under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a) where the alleged acts occurred over 15–18 months and involved different incidents and officers.
2. Whether minor plaintiffs could sue through their parent and natural guardian under Rule 17(c), and whether each plaintiff had standing to pursue individual injury claims.
3. Whether the complaint sufficiently alleged action under color of state law to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the individual officers and related municipal defendants.
4. Whether potential prejudice from broad joinder required denial of joinder at the pleading stage or could be managed later under Rule 20(b).
5. Whether all asserted federal statutory and constitutional theories were sufficiently pleaded, or whether some should be dismissed while preserving core § 1983 claims.

## Decision

- The court denied dismissal of the core § 1983 claims and held the complaint adequately alleged that individual defendants acted under color of state law.
- The court held joinder of parties and claims was proper under Rule 20(a) because the alleged acts were reasonably related as a series of transactions or occurrences forming a continuing pattern directed at the same family.
- The court rejected defendants’ standing and representation challenge to the minors, holding that minors may sue through a representative under Rule 17(c) and that the parent was a proper representative.
- The court dismissed some ancillary statutory or constitutional theories at the pleadings stage, while preserving the principal federal civil-rights claims based on alleged unlawful arrests, searches, beatings, and harassment.
- The court declined to sever at the outset, noting that possible prejudice from joinder could be evaluated after discovery and addressed through Rule 20(b) case-management orders, including separate trials.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 20(a) permits liberal joinder where claims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence, or a series of transactions or occurrences, and share common questions of law or fact.
- Acts occurring over an extended period may satisfy Rule 20(a) when they are reasonably related and alleged to be part of a continuing course of similar conduct directed at the same plaintiffs.
- Rule 20(b) authorizes later orders, including separate trials, to prevent delay or prejudice; potential prejudice from joinder need not defeat joinder at the pleading stage.
- Under Rule 17(c), minors may sue through a proper representative, including a parent acting as natural guardian.
- For § 1983 pleading at the motion-to-dismiss stage, allegations that officers acted in their official capacities as city employees and under state authority may sufficiently plead action under color of state law.

## Conclusion

The court treated the allegations as a connected course of police conduct and permitted broad joinder of numerous plaintiffs and defendants, allowed minors’ claims through their parent representative, and held the complaint adequately pleaded action under color of state law for core § 1983 claims, while reserving prejudice and trial-structure concerns for later management under Rule 20(b).


Kedra v. City of Philadelphia, 454 F. Supp. 652 (E.D. Pa. 1978)