Opinion
Case No. 1:10-cv-01500-LJO-DLB PC
12-17-2013
BRIAN ELLIS PORTER, Plaintiff, v. CHERYLEE WEGMAN, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO JOIN AS
CO-PLAINTIFF AND DIRECTING
CLERK'S OFFICE TO SERVE COURTESY
COPY OF ORDER ON INMATE GEORGE
HAMILTON
(ECF No. 85)
Plaintiff Brian Ellis Porter ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. On December 2, 2013, inmate George Hamilton filed a motion seeking to join in this action as a co-plaintiff. (ECF No. 85.)
Plaintiff Porter is proceeding pro se and he may not represent the interests of any other inmates in this action. Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 664-65 (9th Cir. 2008); Fymbo v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 213 F.3d 1320, 1321 (10th Cir. 2000); Johns v. Cnty. of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1997); C. E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987).
Further, the Court will not permit inmates Porter and Hamilton to join as co-plaintiffs proceeding pro se. Courts have broad discretion regarding the permissive joinder of parties. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20, 21; see Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1296-97 (9th Cir. 2000); Maddox v. Cnty. of Sacramento, No. 2:06-cv-0072-GEB-EFB, 2006 WL 3201078, *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2006). The need for all co-plaintiffs to agree upon and sign all filings becomes almost impossibly burdensome where the plaintiffs are incarcerated and it may become impossible if the plaintiffs can no longer verbally communicate with one another as a result of transfer to different prisons or even transfer to different yards within a single prison. Indeed, only inmate Hamilton filed a request for joinder, and Plaintiff Porter did not sign the motion.
Inmates may not correspond with each other inmates in the absence of written authorization from the warden. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15 § 3139.
Due to the significant and sometimes insurmountable complications which result from multiple incarcerated plaintiffs proceeding pro se in the same action and because none of the inmates may represent the others in the action, inmate Hamilton's motion to join as a co-plaintiff is HEREBY DENIED. See Campbell v. Burt, 141 F.3d 927, 931 (9th Cir. 1998) (affirming denial of joinder motion where proposed parties did not indicate a desire to join and the pro se litigant plaintiff could not represent their interests in court).
The Clerk's Office is DIRECTED to serve a courtesy copy of this order on George Hamilton, CDCR # K-54885, at Kern Valley State Prison. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dennis L. Beck
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE