Opinion
7:23-cv-00043-WLS-TQL
06-05-2023
ROBERT EUGENE SIMMONS, et Plaintiffs, v. JUDGE JOHN KENT EDWARDS, JR, et al.,
ORDER
W. LOUIS SANDS, SR. JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiffs Robert Eugene Simmons, Devante Nelson, Kunta K, Wright, Keith B. McGill, Jason Rutherford, Demetrius Patterson, II, and Willie James Williams, Jr., all of whom are inmates in the Lowndes County Jail in Valdosta, Georgia, have filed a pro se Complaint seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (ECF No. 1). All Plaintiffs appear to have signed the Complaint. Compl. 14-15, ECF No. 1. Plaintiff Simmons has also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) that purports to be on behalf of all the named Plaintiffs, a motion for injunctive relief (ECF No. 5), and a motion for default judgment (ECF No. 6).
The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the “PLRA”) requires that a prisoner bringing a civil action in forma pauperis be responsible for paying this Court's filing fee, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has held that prisoners proceeding in forma pauperis are not allowed to join together as plaintiffs in a single lawsuit and pay only a single filing fee. Instead, each prisoner must file his own lawsuit and pay the full filing fee. Hubbard v. Haley, 262 F.3d 1194, 1198 (11th Cir. 2001) (affirming district court's dismissal of multi-plaintiff action under the PLRA and approving its finding “that each plaintiff had to file a separate complaint and pay a separate filing fee”). As the Eleventh Circuit in Hubbard noted, requiring each plaintiff to pay the foil 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 forma pauperis in this action. As it does not appear Plaintiffs claims would be barred by the applicable statute of limitations if they are required to refile their claims, the Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Each Plaintiff may file a separate complaint, in which he asserts only claims personal to him, if he so chooses. Each Plaintiff should also either pay the filing fee or submit a proper motion to proceed in forma pauperis, which should include a certified copy of the Plaintiffs prison trust fond account information,The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail each Plaintiff a copy of the appropriate forms that Plaintiffs may use for this purpose if they desire. Plaintiffs' pending motions (ECF Nos. 2, 5, 6) are DENIED as moot.
The Court also notes that to the extent any individual Plaintiff seeks to bring his claims as a class action on behalf of his fellow inmates, a pro se Plaintiff may not represent the interests 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 any pro se Plaintiff in this case from seeking relief on behalf of any other Plaintiff in this action, See Massimo v. Henderson, 468 F.2d 1209, 1210 (5th Cir. 1972) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal of the portion of prisoner's complaint that sought relief on behalf of prisoner's fellow inmates).
SO ORDERED