time period, they were housed in separate units, experienced different medical problems, and received different medical treatment by varying medical providers. For the most part, their claims require entirely different proof. Undoubtedly, the Amended Complaint alleges that Vladimir’s and David’s injuries resulted from a jail, County, and/or CCS policy and/or practice of indifference to the medical needs of inmates. Nevertheless, such similarity does not convert the claims involving Vladimir and David into the same “series of transactions or occurrences” in Rule 20(a)’s terms. See, e.g., Abdelkarim v. Gonzales, No. 06-14436, 2007 WL 1284924, at *4-5 (E.D.Mich. April 30, 2007) (citing Coughlin, 130 F.3d at 1350); see also Lover v. District of Columbia, 248 F.R.D. 319, 324 (D.D.C.2008) (<HOLDING>); Morgan v. Cohen, No. 11-11780, 2011 WL
holding that the first prong of rule 20 is not satisfied even though the proposed plaintiffs claims levied against the district of columbia its police chief and individual officers alleged similar illegal searches holding that the fourteenth amendment does not apply to the district of columbia holding that the plaintiff has a good faith basis to believe a putative defendant may be a district of columbia resident if a geolocation service places his her ip address within the district of columbia or within a city located within 30 miles of the district of columbia holding the chief of police was an atwill employee because the parties agreed that the chief of police was an appointed officer and the citys charter stated that officers shall be appointed and may be removed by the mayor with consent of the council holding that claims against a city police chief in his official capacity were really claims against the city