Opinion
Civil No. 03-3175 (JRT/RLE)
November 26, 2003
ORDER
Plaintiff Jessie Harrison brought this action alleging that the defendants' placement of him in prison and failure to protect him violates his civil and constitutional rights and endangers his life. This action was brought as a purported class action, however, Harrison has filed an amended complaint [Docket No. 14] naming only himself as a plaintiff. Harrison amended his complaint pursuant to the Order and Report and Recommendation ("RR") of Magistrate Judge Raymond L. Erickson dated July 25, 2003. In the Order portion of the July 25 Order and RR, plaintiff was ordered to submit a completed copy of an in forma pauperis ("IFF") application, and he was ordered to submit an amended complaint naming only himself as plaintiff. The RR recommended that the claims of the additional plaintiffs, including Plaintiffs John Veasey, John/Jane Doe(s) Federal Witnesses, WITSEC, and/or WITSEC PCU be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
Plaintiff objects to the recommendation, and appeals the Order. The Court has conducted a de novo review of the objections pursuant to U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and D. Minn. LR 72.1(c)(2). For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. The Court also affirms the order portion of the July 25 Order and RR, which would be reversed only if the Magistrate Judge had abused his discretion. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); D. Minn. LR 72.1(b)(2).
ANALYSIS
I. Dismissal of Additional Plaintiffs
The Magistrate Judge recommended that all plaintiffs other than plaintiff Harrison be dismissed, because the plaintiffs did not comply with the Court's order to submit IFF applications. A plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis only if the Court is able to determine, based on plaintiffs financial circumstances, that the plaintiff is eligible for pauper status. The additional plaintiffs have not communicated with the Court, and have not supplied the Court with either the requisite payment of fees, or an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff has not submitted information on behalf of those purported plaintiffs that would support a finding of pauper status. For these reasons, the Court agrees that the additional plaintiffs are not properly before the Court. However, because plaintiff has filed an amended complaint, naming only himself as a plaintiff, the additional plaintiffs have already been terminated from this lawsuit. Therefore, the Court need not direct the clerk to dismiss those plaintiffs.
II. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
Plaintiff also appeals paragraph two of the Magistrate Judge's Order, requiring him to provide a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis. It appears, however, that this issue is moot, because plaintiff has supplied an additional application, along with an official certification of his prisoner trust fund account activity. The Court therefore finds his appeal moot, and affirms that paragraph of the Order.
The Court notes that if the Magistrate Judge denies plaintiffs application, he is entitled to appeal that decision to this Court.
III. Amended Complaint
Finally, plaintiff appeals that portion of the Magistrate's Order requiring him to submit an amended complaint, naming only himself as a plaintiff (paragraph three). However, as with the IFP application, it appears that plaintiff has complied with that portion of the Order by filing an amended complaint. Given the Court's determination that it is appropriate to dismiss the additional plaintiffs for failure to prosecute, plaintiffs appeal of this portion of the Order does not merit further discussion.