Jackson et al v. State of Florida et al

Filing 22

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE dismissing 1 Complaint without prejudice. The Clerk shall enter judgment and close the case. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 7/31/2018. (RKR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
CHARLIE
JACKSON,
DAVID
BAKER, JR., WILLIAM COLE,
DANIEL BROWN, JESUS M. CRUZ,
BLAINE E. WILLIAMS, DANIEL
THOMAS,
RODRIGUEZ
DURAN,
REGINALD R. GRIFFIN, IAN
WAGNER,
TYRONE
CAMBELL,
JAVON SMITH, STANLEY HALL
KRABILL,
MADESTO
GARCIA
BAUTTIA,
and
JAIMIE
MALDANADO,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No:

2:18-cv-295-FtM-29CM

STATE OF FLORIDA, KATHLEEN
A. SMITH, MIKE SCOTT, RICK
SCOTT, STEPHEN B. RUSSELL,
and LINDA DOGGETT,
Defendants.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
This matter comes before the Court on initial review of the
file.

Plaintiffs, fifteen pretrial detainees in the Lee County

Jail, filed a putative “class action” complaint for violation of
civil rights (Doc. #1, Complaint) on April 30, 2018.

Plaintiffs

Jackson, Duran, and Bauttia seek leave to proceed in forma pauperis
on the Complaint.

See Docs. # 7, 16, and 18. At the outset, the

Court notes that the Complaint was not signed by any of the fifteen
plaintiffs listed on the complaint.

See Doc. #1.

Thus, the

pleading fails to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 and M.D. Fla. R.

1.05(d). The Rule requires the Court to “strike un unsigned paper
unless the omission is promptly corrected” after the party is
advised of the omission.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a).

Here the warning

would be futile because Eleventh Circuit law prohibits prisoner
plaintiffs from proceeding in forma pauperis in the same civil
action.

Hubbard

v.

Haley,

262

F.3d

1194,

1196

(11th

Cir.

2001)(affirming dismissal of multi-plaintiff prisoner action as
conflicting with PLRA’s requirement that each prisoner must pay
the filing fee); Bowens v. Turner Guilford Knight Detention, 510
F. App’x 863, 864 (11th Cir. 2013)(affirming dismissal of complaint
filed by six inmates as violative of the PLRA and § 1915’s
requirement that each plaintiff is required to pay the filing fee
in an initial action).

Additionally, while a pro se litigant has

a right to litigate his individual claims in federal court, “[i]t
is plain error to permit [an] imprisoned litigant who is unassisted
by counsel to represent his fellow inmates in a class action.”
Wallace v. Smith, 145 F. App’x 300, 302 (11th Cir. 2005) (per
curiam).

Consequently, pro se prisoner Plaintiff’s cannot jointly

prosecute this action or proceed on their putative class action
complaint.
Consequently, the Court will dismiss the Complaint without
prejudice. 1

To the extent each individual plaintiff wishes to

1

The Court previously dismissed a similar putative class
action complaint.
See Case Number 2:18-cv-259-FtM-29MRM, Order

- 2 -

prosecute a claim, they shall file a separate complaint in their
own action.

If, upon review of the individual complaints, the

Court concludes that the interests of judicial economy require the
joinder of any claim(s), it may so order at that time.
of

the

Federal

Rules

of

Civil

Procedure

allows

plaintiffs when certain requirements are satisfied.

Rule 20

joinder

by

Specifically,

the rule states that persons may join in one action as plaintiffs
if:
(A)

(B)
Id.

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; and
any question of law or fact common to all
plaintiffs will arise in the action.

Joinder of parties is encouraged in the interest of judicial

economy, subject to two prerequisites: (1) the persons who are
joined as defendants must be interested in claims arising out of
the same transaction or occurrence, or series of transactions or
occurrences; and, (2) all the parties joined must share at least
one question of law or fact.

Alexander v. Fulton County, 207 F.3d

1303, 1323 (11th Cir. 2000), overruled on other grounds, Manders
v. Lee, 338 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2003).

dated June 5, 2018. From a cursory review of the complaints, it
appears that several of the plaintiffs named on the instant
complaint were plaintiffs on the other complaint as well, and have
already initiated their own separate action.

- 3 -

ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1.

The Complaint (Doc. #1) is dismissed without prejudice.

2.

The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment and terminate

any pending motions and close this action.
DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this
of July 2018.

SA: FTMP-1
Copies:
Counsel of Record

- 4 -

31st

day