Shabazz v. Secretary, Department of Corrections et al
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,
MARK S. INCH,
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
Petitioner One of the Class Covered by the Preliminary Injunction
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
(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.
And the Court granted Shabazz a preliminary
injunction based on factual findings specific to him.
not benefit from the preliminary injunction as a member of a nonexistent class.
argument fails for several reasons.
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).
Azemar and Shabazz are asserting the same right to relief—to be
excused from the FDOC’s grooming policy—their claims arise from
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
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
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
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
DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on April
Copies: All Parties of Record
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?