Opinion
Civil No. 13-2204
11-18-2013
BRADLEY COLT BRUMFIELD; BISHMAEL H. OBAMAS PLAINTIFFS v. MIKE GODFREY, Sheriff, Polk County, Arkansas; DEPUTY SCOTT SAWYER; CHIEF JAILER MS. VICKI; and JAILER MR. DEWAYNE DEFENDANTS
ORDER
This action was filed jointly by two prisoners. Multiple prisoners may not join together in a single lawsuit. Hubbard v. Magness, 262 F.3d 1194 (11th Cir. 2001); Woods v. Fuller, 2013 WL 3051155 (D.S.C. June 14, 2013); Georgeoff v. Barnes, 2:09CV14 ERW, 2009 WL 1405497 (E.D. Mo. May 18, 2009); Perry v. Crane, 2007 WL 144114 (W.D. Ark. May 16, 2007). As a result, the Court will sever one of the Plaintiffs from this case and order the Clerk to open a new case for that Plaintiff.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) requires that "if a prisoner brings a civil action or files an appeal in forma pauperis (IFP), the prisoner shall be required to pay the full amount of a filing fee." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Prisoners proceeding IFP may pay the fee in installments. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). Implementation of the PLRA was designed to make prisoners feel the deterrent effect of the filing fee. See e.g., Hampton v. Hobbs, 106 F.3d 1281, 1286 (6th Cir. 1997). Each individual Plaintiff must feel the financial effect of filing a suit in federal court. See id.; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). As a result, each Plaintiff must pay the full filing fee of $350. Hagan v. Rogers, 570 F.3d 146, 155-56 (3rd Cir. 2009); Boriboune v. Berge, 391 F.3d 852, 855-56 (7th Cir. 2004).
"Multiple filing fees cannot be collected for one case filed by multiple plaintiffs, thus the PLRA's requirement that a prisoner pay the full fee for filing a lawsuit would be circumvented in a multiple plaintiff case subject to the PLRA." Lilly v. Ozmint, 2007 WL 2021874 *1 (D.S.C. July 6, 2007); see 28 U.S.C. § 1914 (filing fee statute). The requirement of § 1915(b)(1) that each "prisoner shall be required to pay the full amount of a filing fee" requires individual prisoners to bring separate suits, rather than file jointly under Rule 20. Hubbard v. Haley, 262 F.3d 1194 (11th Cir. 2001). Cf. Mitchell v. Cox, 2013 WL 4040788 (D. Nev. August 7, 2013)(Joinder rules do not eliminate the requirement that each prisoner pay a full filing fee pursuant to the PLRA. However, the court retains discretion to sua sponte sever claims and parties).
In addition, "the impracticalities inherent in multiple-prisoner litigation militate against the permissive joinder allowed by Rule 20." Hagwood v. Warden, 2009 WL 427396 *2 (D.N.J. Feb. 19, 2009) (citing Wasko v. Allen County Jail, 2006 WL 978956 (N.D. Ind. April 12, 2006); Swenson v. MacDonald, 2007 WL 240233 *2-4 (D. Mont. Jan. 30, 2006)).
Among the difficulties noted by these courts are the need for each plaintiff to sign the pleadings, and the consequent possibilities that documents may be changed as they are circulated or that prisoners may seek to compel prison authorities to permit them to gather to discuss the joint litigation. [Other] courts have also noted that jail populations are notably transitory, making joint litigation difficult. A final consideration for [one court] was the possibility that "coercion, subtle or not, frequently plays a role in relations between inmates."Hagwood, 2009 WL 427396 at *2. Cf. Webb v. Maldonaldo, 2013 WL 3243135 (D. Conn. June 26, 2013)(Court has authority to sua sponte sever parties).
Finally, joinder of prisoners' claims under Rule 20 would allow prisoners to avoid the risk of incurring strikes under § 1915(g) so long as one of those prisoners' claims is viable, because § 1915(g) imposes a strike only if the entire action is dismissed. Hagan v. Rogers, 570 F.3d 146, 154-55 (3d Cir. 2009). Prisoners should not be allowed to circumvent the penalties associated with filing frivolous actions by joining claims under Rule 20.
For these reasons, the Court will not allow Plaintiffs to proceed jointly in this action. The Clerk is directed to sever the claims of Bishmael H. Obamas and open a new case for him. The complaint filed in this case (Doc. 2) may be used to open the case. This order should be filed in each case. Bishmael H. Obamas did not submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). The Clerk is also directed to provide Bishmael H. Obamas with an IFP application (prisoner form) and a form complaint for civil rights cases.
Bishmael H. Obamas is directed to file the following by December 6, 2013:
(1) a completed IFP form;
(2) and an amended complaint asserting only his claims.
In the amended complaint, Plaintiff must write short, plain statements telling the Court: (1) the constitutional right Plaintiff believes was violated; (2) the name of the Defendant who violated the right; (3) exactly what the Defendant did or failed to do; (4) how the action or inaction of that Defendant is connected to the violation of Plaintiff's constitutional rights; and (5) what specific injury Plaintiff suffered because of that Defendant's conduct. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377 (1976); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Plaintiff must repeat this process for each person he has named as a Defendant.
The Plaintiff must clearly designate on the face of the document that it is a first amended complaint. The first amended complaint must be retyped or rewritten in its entirety on the court-approved form and may not incorporate any part of the original complaint. A first amended complaint supersedes, or takes the place of, the original complaint. After amendment, the Court will treat the original complaint as nonexistent. Any cause of action that was raised in the original complaint is waived if it is not raised in the first amended complaint.
With respect to Bradley Brumfield, he has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 1). The motion (Doc. 1) is granted. Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the Clerk is directed to collect the $350 filing fee from Brumfield.
The docket sheet has Nevada County listed as a Defendant. This lawsuit involves Polk County. The Clerk is directed to terminate Nevada County as a Defendant and add Chief Jailer Ms. Vicki and Jailer Mr. Dewayne as Defendants.
The Court hereby directs the United States Marshal to serve the Defendants. The Defendants may be served at the Polk County Detention Center, 507 Church Street, Mena, AR 71953. Defendants are to be served without prepayment of fees and costs or security therefor. The Defendants are ordered to answer within twenty-one (21) days from the date of service.
The Clerk is directed to prepare and issue summons and a USM 285 for each Defendant being served.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 18th day of November 2013.
______________________________
HON. JAMES R. MARSCHEWSKI
CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE