MILLER v. FARLEY et al
ORDER to pay initial partial filing fee and Order to Supplement Complaint. Ordered by US Mag Judge Stephen Hyles on 12/6/11. (lws)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
TRACY R. MILLER,
GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et. al.,
CIVIL No: 5:11-CV-465-MTT-MSH
PROCEEDINGS UNDER 42 U.S.C. '1983
BEFORE THE U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff TRACY R. MILLER, an inmate currently confined at the Pulaski State
Prison in Hawkinsville, Georgia, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. '
1983. She also seeks leave to proceed without prepayment of the $350.00 filing fee or
security therefor pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(a). Based on Plaintiff’s submissions, the
Court finds that Plaintiff is unable to prepay the entire filing fee at this time. Plaintiff’s
Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. 2] is accordingly GRANTED.
Plaintiff is, however, still required to pay the full amount of the $350.00 filing fee.
Fees are not refundable, regardless of the outcome. See 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(b)(1). Plaintiff
is thus responsible for the entire $350.00 filing fee even if her lawsuit is dismissed prior to
service. Moreover, having reviewed Plaintiff=s trust fund account statement, the Court
finds that Plaintiff may now be able to prepay at least a portion of the filing fee.
Therefore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(b)(1)(B), it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff
pay an initial partial filing fee of $6.67.
Hereafter, Plaintiff will be required to make monthly payments of 20% of the
deposits made to her prisoner account during the preceding month toward the full filing
fee. The agency having custody of Plaintiff shall forward said payments from Plaintiff’s
account to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00 until
the filing fees are paid. 28 U.S.C. §1915(b)(2). To that end, the Clerk of Court is
DIRECTED to send a copy of this Order to the business manager and the warden of the
institution where Plaintiff is currently confined.
Plaintiff is also ORDERED to file a supplement to her Complaint. Plaintiff’s
Complaint alleges that a fire caused black smoke to fill her room one night, that no alarm
ever sounded, and that Defendants failed to follow the “proper procedure” for assisting
Plaintiff and her roommate. The Complaint, however, fails to describe what injury
Plaintiff suffered as a result of this failure or to describe how the individual defendants’
action, or inaction, violated her constitutional rights. Plaintiff in fact makes no specific
allegations of intentional wrongdoing against Defendants Farley, Williams, or Austin,
other than to allege that they did not “follow the proper procedure.” Thus, Plaintiff=s
Complaint fails to provide enough detail for the Court to determine whether she can state a
plausible claim against any of the defendants.
Plaintiff should supplement her Complaint by listing each defendant and telling the
Court exactly what each did, or did not do, which violated her constitutional rights. In so
doing, Plaintiff should keep in mind that wardens and other supervisory officials are not
liable under '1983 for the unconstitutional acts of their subordinates merely because of
their position or supervisory responsibilities. Cottone v. Jenne, 326 F.3d 1352, 1360 (11th
Cir. 2003). Plaintiff should also more fully describe any injury she suffered as a result of
There is, however, no need for Plaintiff to explain what the “Georgia Department of
Corrections” or “Pulaski State Prison”1 did to violate her rights. These entities cannot be
sued under § 1983. Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71, 109 S.Ct.
2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989); see also Stevens v. Gay, 864 F.2d 113, 115 (11th Cir. 1989)
(“The Eleventh Amendment bars this action against the Georgia Department of
Corrections[.]”); Brinson v. Coastal State Prison, 2009 WL 890574 at *2 (S.D. Ga. Apr. 1,
2009) (“Coastal State Prison has no independent legal existence and, therefore, is not an
entity that is subject to suit under § 1983.”).
There is also no need for Plaintiff to elaborate on any claims which could be brought
by Kiara S. Coggins, also named as a plaintiff in the caption of the Complaint. Ms.
Coggins cannot be joined as a plaintiff in this action. She did not sign the Complaint or
supply the Court with an IFP affidavit. Moreover, even if Ms. Coggins was to meet these
procedural requirements, pro se prisoners proceeding in forma pauperis are not allowed to
join together as plaintiffs in a single lawsuit. Each prisoner is required to file her own
lawsuit and pay the filing fee. Hubbard v. Haley, 262 F.3d 1194 (11th Cir. 2001).
Plaintiff shall have TWENTY-ONE DAYS (21) DAYS from the date shown on this
Order to (1) pay an initial partial filing fee of $ 6.67; and (2) file a supplement to her
Complaint which more fully describes her allegations against the individual defendants.
Failure to comply with this Order may result in the dismissal of Plaintiff=s Complaint.
There shall be no service of process in this case until further order of the Court.
SO ORDERED, this 6th day of December 2011.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
1 Though not listed on the Docket, “Pulaski State Prison” is named as a defendant in the caption of
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?