Opinion
Case No. 5:19-cv-00506-MTT-MSH
12-26-2019
RAYMOND CHATFIELD, JR, et al, Plaintiffs, v. EDWARD D LUKEMIRE, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Plaintiffs Raymond Chatfield, Jr., Joseph Richard Mazza, and Timothy Dustin McDaniels, who are pretrial detainees confined at the Houston County Detention Center in Perry, Georgia, filed a pro se civil rights complaint seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without prepaying the Court's filing fee. Compl., ECF No. 1. Plaintiffs seek leave to proceed without prepayment of the fee. Mot. for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, ECF No. 2.
A pro se plaintiff may not represent the interest of other prisoners. See, e.g., Wallace v. Smith, 145 F. App'x 300, 302 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (citing Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975) (finding it "plain error to permit [an] imprisoned litigant who is unassisted by counsel to represent his fellow inmates in a class action")). This same principle prevents a pro se Plaintiff like Plaintiff Chatfield from representing the other inmates who are named as Plaintiffs. See Massimo v. Henderson, 468 F.2d 1209, 1210 (5th Cir. 1972) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal of the portion of a prisoner's complaint that sought relief on behalf of the prisoner's fellow inmates).
Plaintiff Chatfield is marked as "Lead Counsel" on Plaintiffs' complaint form. Compl., ECF No. 1 at 1.
In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), the Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit rendered prior to October 1, 1981.
Moreover, under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the "PLRA"), prisoners proceeding in forma pauperis may not join together as plaintiffs in a single lawsuit and pay only a single filing fee. Hubbard v. Haley, 262 F.3d 1194, 1198 (11th Cir. 2001) (affirming the district court's dismissal of a multi-plaintiff action under the PLRA on the ground "that each plaintiff had to file a separate complaint and pay a separate filing fee"). Instead, each prisoner must file his own lawsuit and pay the full filing fee. See id. As the Eleventh Circuit noted in Hubbard, requiring each plaintiff to pay the full filing fee is consistent with Congress's purpose of imposing costs on prisoners to deter frivolous suits. Id. at 1197-98.
Plaintiffs are therefore not permitted to proceed in an action together in forma pauperis. As it does not appear that Plaintiffs' claims would be barred by the applicable statutes of limitations if they are required to refile their claims, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiffs' complaint WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Each Plaintiff may file a separate complaint, in which he asserts only claims personal to him, if he chooses to do so. Each Plaintiff must also either pay the filing fee or submit a proper motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
Documents accompanying the complaint indicate that the facts underlying Plaintiffs Chatfield's claims began on February 7, 2019, and that the facts underlying Plaintiff McDaniel's claims began on March 23, 2019. The dates of the facts underlying Plaintiff Mazza's claims are not set forth in any document submitted to the Court. See Attachment 1 to Complaint, ECF No. 1; Attachment 2 to Compl., ECF No. 1 at 3. --------
Plaintiffs should note that their motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis was defective for the additional reason that the account certification form was not signed by an appropriate institution official, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Should Plaintiffs choose to proceed individually, each Plaintiff's motion must include an affidavit in support of his claim of indigency, a printout of the prisoner's trust fund account statement for the preceding six-month period, and an account certification form signed by an appropriate institution official. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2).
SO ORDERED, this 26th day of December, 2019.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE