Shabazz v. Secretary, Department of Corrections et al

Filing 168

OPINION AND ORDER denying 164 Motion for Permissive Joinder; denying Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 4/1/2021. (RKR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
ABDUL HAKEEN JAHMAL NASEER
SHABAZZ aka Owen D. Denson,
Jr.,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No:

MARK S. INCH,
Florida D.O.C.,

2:17-cv-648-JES-NPM

Secretary,

Defendant.

/
OPINION AND ORDER

Before the Court is Jacques A. Azemar’s Motion for Permissive
Joinder and or Preliminary Injunction as a Member of the Class the
Court

Has

Issued

Injunctive

Relief

or

Enter

an

Order

Making

Petitioner One of the Class Covered by the Preliminary Injunction
(Doc. #164).
Plaintiff Abdul Shabazz—an inmate of the Florida Department
of Corrections (FDOC) proceeding in forma pauperis—filed this
action, seeking an exception to the FDOC’s rule limiting inmate’s
beards to a half-inch in length.

Shabazz observes the Sunni Muslim

faith, which mandates he grow a beard to at least a fist-length
(about four inches).

Shabazz requested a preliminary injunction

to enjoin the FDOC from enforcing the grooming policy against him.
The Court granted the motion and issued a preliminary injunction.
Azemar “seeks the same relief as [Shabazz] as he is of the

same faith.”

(Doc. #164 at 2).

He asks the Court to treat him

as a member of the class covered by the preliminary injunction.
But Shabazz filed this action solely on his own behalf.
not represent a class.

He does

And the Court granted Shabazz a preliminary

injunction based on factual findings specific to him.

Azemar may

not benefit from the preliminary injunction as a member of a nonexistent class.
Alternatively,

Azemar

seeks

argument fails for several reasons.

permissive

joinder.

This

First, persons may join as

plaintiffs in a single action only if “they assert any right to
relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to
or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of
transactions or occurrences.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a).

While

Azemar and Shabazz are asserting the same right to relief—to be
excused from the FDOC’s grooming policy—their claims arise from
different occurrences.

And as explained in the Court’s prior

order, entitlement to that right hinges on an “individualized,
context specific inquiry.”

Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S. Ct. 853, 863

(2015).
Second, the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) prohibits
multiple prisoners from avoiding payment of a filing fee by joining
claims in a single case.
(11th Cir. 2001).

Hubbard v. Haley, 262 F.3d 1194, 1198

Thus, to comply with the PLRA, Azemar must file

a separate action.

Finally, even if joinder were permissible

2

here, it would create undue delay.

Shabazz filed this case over

three years ago, and discovery and dispositive motions deadlines
are mere months away.

Adding a new plaintiff now would undoubtably

significantly delay the resolution of this case.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED:
Jacques A. Azemar’s Motion for Permissive Joinder and or
Preliminary Injunction as a Member of the Class the Court Has
Issued Injunctive Relief or Enter an Order Making Petitioner One
of the Class Covered by the Preliminary Injunction (Doc. #164) is
DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on April
2021.

SA: FTMP-1
Copies: All Parties of Record

3

1st

,