Blanc et al v. Reinke et al

Filing 16

ORDER denying 13 Nora Harrison Barkey's APPLICATION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. At their request, Plaintiffs Kathleen Blanc and Virginia Goodson, re 14 Declaration, 10 MOTION for Voluntary Dismissal, are DISMISSED from this act ion without prejudice. Plaintiffs Kathryn Vann, Jeannie Disney, Alisha Ann Murphy, Autumn Pauls, Dawn M. Johnson, Loni M. Shier, and Tammy McMillen Hoover are also DISMISSED from this action without prejudice for failure to respond. If Plaintiffs Bar key, Jonas, Buttram, or Winn wish to proceed, no later than 30 days from the date of this Order they shall file separate amended complaints and separate applications for in forma pauperis status (or pay the $350 filing fee) that comply with the instructions in the 9/9/2011 Initial Review Order 9 and in this Order. Plaintiff Barkey shall file her amended complaint under this case number. The other Plaintiffs amended complaints will be assigned new case numbers. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

KATHLEEN BLANC, SANDY JONAS,
KATHRYN VANN, JEANNIE
DISNEY, ALISHA ANN MURPHY,
AUTUMN PAULS, DEANNA C.
BUTTRAM, DAWN M. JOHNSON,
LONI M. SHIER, TAMMY A.
MCMILLEN HOOVER, VIRGINIA
GOODSON, KATHI L. WINN, and
NORA A. HARRISON BARKEY,

Case No. 4:11-cv-00333-BLW

ORDER

Plaintiffs,
v.
BRENT REINKE, WARDEN JIM
WOOLF, LEEANNE HAMILTON,
JEFF KIRKMAN, FELICIA FUNK, and
JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-10,
Defendants.

This prisoner civil rights case was assigned to United States Magistrate Judge
Ronald E. Bush, who conducted an initial review of the Plaintiffs’ Complaint under 28
U.S.C. § 1915 and § 1915A. (Dkt. 9.) The case has since been reassigned to the
undersigned District Judge because not all parties have consented to a Magistrate Judge
conducting all proceedings. (Dkt. 15.)
Currently before the Court are (1) Plaintiff Nora Harrison Barkey’s “Response to
Initial Review Order and Request #2 for Class Action Certification” (Dkt. 11), (2)
ORDER - 1

Plaintiffs Winn, Buttram, and Jonas’s letters in response to the Initial Review Order (Dkt.
11-1, 11-2, 12), and (3) Plaintiffs Blanc and Goodson’s motions for voluntary dismissal
(Dkts. 10, 14).
BACKGROUND
A group of prisoners at the Pocatello Women’s Correctional Center (PWCC)
started this lawsuit by jointly filing a Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint, in which they
alleged that prison officials and employees have violated their constitutional rights and
have contravened various federal criminal statutes. (Dkt. 3.) Plaintiffs also requested
certification of a class action. (Dkt. 4.)
The case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Bush, who conducted an initial review
of the Complaint as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and § 1915A. (Dkt. 9.) Judge Bush
determined that the Plaintiffs had failed to state a claim on which relief may be granted.
In reaching that conclusion, he found that the claims “are vague and do not contain
sufficient factual allegations for the Court to draw a plausible inference that Defendants
are liable for the alleged misconduct.” (Dkt. 9, p. 4.) Judge Bush further noted that, “[i]t is
difficult for the Court to determine which Plaintiff is asserting which claim against which
Defendant, and the personal participation of each Defendant in each alleged violation is
unclear.” (Id.)
To address these concerns, the Judge Bush instructed each Plaintiff who wished to
proceed to file her own amended complaint, rather than to continue as joint plaintiffs in a
single case, and to submit a new application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkt. 9, pp. 24ORDER - 2

25.) Judge Bush also set out the law for each potential legal claim and gave Plaintiffs
specific instructions on how to draft amended complaints that are concise and that comply
with Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id.)
Plaintiff Barkey has since filed a “Response to Initial Review Order and Request
#2 for Class Action Certification,” challenging many of the conclusions and instructions
in the Initial Review Order. (Dkt. 11.) Sandy Jonas and Deanna Buttram have submitted
letters, attached to Barkey’s Response, that outline what they perceive to be problems and
issues at PWCC. (Id.) Kathi Winn has also filed a letter with the Court, apparently
intending for the letter to serve as an amended complaint (Dkt. 12). Finally, Plaintiffs
Blanc and Goodson seek their dismissal from the action, (Dkts. 10, 14), and no other
Plaintiff has filed a response of any kind.
DISCUSSION
The Court will first grant the requests of Plaintiffs’ Blanc and Goodson for
voluntary dismissal, and they will dismissed as parties to this action without prejudice.1
Next, Plaintiffs Vann, Disney, Murphy, Pauls, Johnson, Shier, and McMillen
Hoover did not respond in any fashion to the Initial Review Order, and they will also be
dismissed without prejudice to refiling new complaints at a later date. Therefore, of those

1

The Court notes that Ms. Blanc filed an amended complaint, which was docketed by the Clerk
of Court under a new case number, 4:11-cv-550-MHW, which has been dismissed at Ms. Blanc’s request.
(Case No. 4:11-cv-550-MHW at Dkts 8, 10.) She now asserts, however, that she wants to dismiss her
claims only if counsel is not appointed to assist her and the other Plaintiffs. (Case No. 4:11-cv-333-BLW
at Dkt. 14.) Because the Court will not appoint counsel at this juncture (or, rather, does not yet find good
cause to seek pro bono counsel to represent Plaintiffs in this civil matter without pay), Ms. Blanc’s
request for dismissal under that condition will be honored.
ORDER - 3

Plaintiffs who signed or were added to the original Complaint, only Plaintiffs Barkey,
Jonas, Buttram, and Winn remain.
The Court has independently reviewed the Complaint and agrees with the
Magistrate Judge that it fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. The Court
concurs with the well-reasoned analysis in the Initial Review Order and adopts it here.
The Complaint is written in a narrative form that touches on wide-ranging conditions at
PWCC without alleging facts that show constitutional injuries or that link together
specific Plaintiffs, Defendants, and claims. Ms. Barkey’s Response to Initial Review
Order continues this pattern, and Plaintiffs Jonas, Buttram, and Winn have submitted
letters instead of properly completed amended complaints with case captions, named
defendants tied to causes of action, and requests for relief. Only Barkey has filed a new
Motion and Affidavit for Permission to Proceed on Partial Payment of Court Fees, but she
did not include a statement of her prison trust account showing a balance for the previous
six months. (Dkt. 13.)
In short, all of these filings are deficient. While claims for relief may lurk
somewhere in the list of generalized grievances that have been offered to the Court, it is
Plaintiffs’ responsibility to articulate factual allegations in a clear and straightforward
manner in a proper pleading so that the Court can complete its initial review
responsibilities and Defendants are able to respond. Legal briefing, argument, and lengthy
case citations are not necessary. Plaintiffs would be better served by complying with the
Court’s instructions rather than resisting them, and focusing on a few narrow issues is
ORDER - 4

often more productive than a scattershot approach that buries potentially meritorious
claims with those that have no merit.
The Court will grant the remaining Plaintiffs one final opportunity to submit
amended complaints that will then relate back to the original filing date of the Complaint.
The Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge that it would be more efficient to require
each Plaintiff to file her own amended complaint rather than to proceed as joint plaintiffs
in a single case with potentially divergent claims and issues. Plaintiffs do not have a right
to piggyback onto one application for in forma pauperis status – or to circumvent prison
rules on the sharing of legal or other confidential material – by joining in one lawsuit. No
Plaintiff will be prejudiced by proceeding individually, and each Plaintiff should write
clearly on the first page of any amended complaint that the pleading relates to the filing of
the Complaint in Case No. 4:11-cv-333-BLW. Ms. Barkey may file her amended
complaint under the present case number, but all other amended complaints will receive a
new case number. If it later appears that common issues of fact or law exist in more than
one amended complaint, the Court may then re-evaluate whether consolidation might be
warranted.
The Court understands that Plaintiffs wish to proceed as representatives in a class
action lawsuit, but that issue is premature until a claim or claims for relief have been set
forth in a proper pleading. In addition, if even a single plaintiff receives injunctive relief
that results in policy changes that affect the prison population as a whole, all prisoners
would benefit from those changes and a formal class action may not be necessary to
ORDER - 5

achieve the same result. See, e.g., Giles v. Prattville, 556 F.Supp. 612 (D. Ala. 1983);
Chacon v. Zahorka, 663 F.Supp. 90 (D. Colo. 1987). The Court expresses no opinion on
that matter at this time, and any Plaintiff may renew a motion for class certification when
the issue is ripe.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED:
1.

Nora Harrison Barkey’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Dkt.
13) is DENIED without prejudice as deficient.

2.

At their request, Plaintiffs Kathleen Blanc and Virginia Goodson (Dkts. 10,
14) are DISMISSED from this action without prejudice. Plaintiffs Kathryn
Vann, Jeannie Disney, Alisha Ann Murphy, Autumn Pauls, Dawn M.
Johnson, Loni M. Shier, and Tammy McMillen Hoover are also
DISMISSED from this action without prejudice for failure to respond. The
Clerk shall indicate on the Court’s CM/ECF docket for this case that these
Plaintiffs have been terminated from this case.

3.

The Clerk shall send copies of the most recent Prisoner Self-Help Packet for
filing a Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to
remaining Plaintiffs Nora Harrison Barkey, Sandy Jonas, Deanna Buttram,
and Kathi Winn. Plaintiffs are encouraged to use this Packet.

4.

If Plaintiffs Barkey, Jonas, Buttram, or Winn wish to proceed, no later than
30 days from the date of this Order they shall file separate amended

ORDER - 6

complaints and separate applications for in forma pauperis status (or pay the
$350 filing fee) that comply with the instructions in the September 9, 2011
Initial Review Order and in this Order. Plaintiff Barkey shall file her
amended complaint under this case number. The other Plaintiffs’ amended
complaints will be assigned new case numbers, though Plaintiffs shall note
on the first page of their amended complaints that they relate back to the
Complaint filed in Case No. 4:11-cv-333-BLW. Any Plaintiff who does not
wish to pursue her case at this time shall file a notice of voluntary dismissal
no later than 30 days from the date of this Order.
5.

Failure to comply with this Order may result in dismissal without further
notice.

DATED: April 23, 2012

Honorable B. Lynn Winmill
Chief U. S. District Judge

ORDER - 7