Graham, Jr v. Watson et al

Filing 7

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that each "Block AA Offender" (other than Plaintiff Graham) shall advise the Court in writing on or before December 7, 2015, whether he wishes to continue as a plaintiff in this group action. If, by that deadline, any non-lead plaintiff has not communicated with the Court or has indicated in writing that he does not wish to participate in this action, he will not be considered a party to this action and will not incur a filing fee for this action. (Action due by 12/7/2015). Signed by Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 11/2/2015. (tjk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
TYRONE GRAHAM, Jr., # 432985,
and BLOCK AA, 1
Plaintiffs,
vs.
RICHARD WATSON,
PHILLIP McLAURIN,
and UNKNOWN PARTY,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 15-cv-01114-NJR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court for case management. Plaintiff Tyrone Graham, Jr., is
currently detained at St. Clair County Jail (“the Jail”). Proceeding pro se, he filed a complaint
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against numerous St. Clair County officials. In the complaint,
Plaintiff Graham alleges that all “Block AA Offenders” have endured unconstitutional conditions
of confinement at the Jail since August 11, 2015. (Doc. 1, p. 5). On that date, thirty offenders
were moved from Block AA to the gym when a light broke in their cell block. They have since
been forced to share a single toilet and eat and sleep amidst pests on the gym floor. (Id.). Plaintiff
seeks an Order requiring the Jail to return the Block AA Offenders to their cell block “with better
living conditions.” (Id. at 6).
This action appears to involve more than one plaintiff. Plaintiff Graham signed the
complaint. (Id.). He also signed and filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
(“IFP motion”) (Doc. 2) and a motion for recruitment of counsel (Doc. 3). But the case caption
1

“Block AA” is named as a plaintiff in the case caption of the complaint but not on the docket sheet in
CM/ECF. The CLERK will be DIRECTED to ADD “Block AA” as a plaintiff in this action.

Page 1 of 7

also lists “Block AA” as a plaintiff. (Doc. 1, p. 1). The narrative portion of the complaint is
written in third person (Id. at 5), and the request for relief pertains to all Block AA Offenders.
(Id. at 6). Along with the complaint, Plaintiff Graham filed a “petition” dated August 19, 2015,
that refers to Major McLaurin as a “Defendant” and is signed by nineteen individuals who are
referred to as “Plaintiff AA Offenders.” (Doc. 1-1, p. 1). Plaintiff Graham also filed a letter dated
September 1, 2015, which indicates that the Block AA Offenders would like to file a lawsuit
together to address the conditions of their confinement at the Jail. (Doc. 1, p. 7). The complaint
appears to be just that.
Given the above facts, the Court cannot rule out the possibility that this action involves
up to thirty plaintiffs. The Court will not proceed with its preliminary review of the complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A until Plaintiff Graham and any other plaintiffs who wish to
proceed together in this action address this issue. When deciding whether to proceed together in
a single action, all potential plaintiffs should consider the following:
Group Litigation by Multiple Prisoners
Multiple plaintiffs may bring their claims jointly in a single lawsuit if they so desire.
Before the Court allows them to proceed together, however, the Court must admonish them as to
the consequences of proceeding in this manner--including their filing fee obligations--and give
each of them the opportunity to proceed together in this case or proceed in a separate action.
In Boriboune v. Berge, 391 F.3d 852 (7th Cir. 2004), the court addressed the difficulties
in administering group prisoner complaints. District courts are required to accept joint
complaints filed by multiple prisoners if the criteria for permissive joinder under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 20 are satisfied. Rule 20 permits plaintiffs to join together in one lawsuit if they
assert claims “arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or

Page 2 of 7

occurrences and if any question of law or fact common to these persons will arise in the action.”
Nonetheless, a district court may turn to other civil rules to manage a multi-plaintiff case.
If appropriate, claims may be severed pursuant to Rule 20(b), pretrial orders may be issued
providing for a logical sequence of decisions pursuant to Rule 16, parties improperly joined may
be dropped pursuant to Rule 21, and separate trials may be ordered pursuant to Rule 42(b).
Boriboune, 391 F.3d at 854.
In reconciling the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act with Rule 20, the Seventh Circuit
determined that joint litigation does not relieve any prisoner of the duties imposed upon him
under the Act, including the duty to pay the full amount of the filing fees, either in installments
or in full if the circumstances require it. Id. In other words, each prisoner in a joint action is
required to pay a full civil filing fee, just as if he had filed the suit individually.
The Circuit noted that there are at least two other reasons a prisoner may wish to avoid
group litigation. First, group litigation creates countervailing costs. Each submission to the Court
must be served on every other plaintiff and the opposing parties pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 5. This means that if there are thirty plaintiffs, the plaintiffs’ postage and copying
costs of filing motions, briefs, or other papers in the case will be thirty times greater than if there
is a single plaintiff.
Second, a prisoner litigating on his own behalf takes the risk that “one or more of his
claims may be deemed sanctionable under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.”
Boriboune, 391 F.3d at 854-55. A prisoner litigating jointly assumes those risks for all of the
claims in the group complaint, whether or not they concern him personally. Furthermore, if the
Court finds that the complaint contains unrelated claims against unrelated defendants, those
unrelated claims may be severed into one or more new cases. If that severance of claims occurs,

Page 3 of 7

each plaintiff will be liable for another full filing fee for each new case. Plaintiffs may wish to
take this into account in determining whether to assume the risks of group litigation in the federal
courts of the Seventh Circuit.
Because not every prisoner is likely to be aware of the potential negative consequences of
joining group litigation in federal courts, the Circuit suggested in Boriboune that district courts
alert prisoners to the individual payment requirement, as well as the other risks prisoner pro se
litigants face in joint pro se litigation, and “give them an opportunity to drop out.” Id. at 856.
Therefore, in keeping with this suggestion, the Court offers all Block AA Offenders, other than
Plaintiff Graham, whom it designates as the “lead” Plaintiff 2 in this case, an opportunity to notify
the Court of their intentions to proceed together with Plaintiff Graham in this action or not
(i.e., by bringing a separate action or no action at all). Each potential plaintiff may wish to take
into consideration the following points in making his decision:
•

He will be held legally responsible for knowing precisely what is
being filed in the case on his behalf.

•

He will be subject to sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 11 if such sanctions are found warranted in any aspect
of the case.

•

He will incur a strike if the action is dismissed as frivolous or
malicious or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted.

•

In screening the complaint, the Court will consider whether
unrelated claims should be severed and, if it decides severance is
appropriate, he will be required to prosecute his claims in a
separate action and pay a separate filing fee for each new action.

•

Whether the action is dismissed, severed, or allowed to proceed as
a group complaint, he will be required to pay a full filing fee,
either in installments or in full, depending on whether he qualifies

2

The Court notes that Plaintiff Graham is the only named plaintiff in the case caption (Doc. 1, p. 6) and
the only individual who signed and filed an IFP motion (Doc. 2) and a motion for recruitment of counsel
(Doc. 3).

Page 4 of 7

for indigent status under §§ 1915(b) or (g). 3
In addition, if a Block AA Offender who has already signed the “petition” wishes to
continue this litigation as a group, it is not necessary to file an amended complaint with all of the
plaintiffs’ signatures because the “petition” is considered part of the complaint. That being said,
any proposed amended complaint, motion, or other document filed on behalf of multiple
plaintiffs must be signed by each of the plaintiffs. As long as the plaintiffs appear without
counsel in this action, each plaintiff must sign documents for himself. See Lewis v. Lenc-Smith
Mfg. Co., 784 F.2d 829, 831 (7th Cir. 1986); FED. R. CIV. P. 11. 4 A non-attorney cannot file or
sign papers for another litigant. Plaintiffs are WARNED that future group motions or pleadings
that do not comply with this requirement shall be stricken pursuant to Rule 11(a).
Pending Motion
The Court RESERVES RULING on Plaintiff Graham’s motion for recruitment of
counsel (Doc. 3).
Disposition
The CLERK is DIRECTED to ADD “Block AA Offenders” as a plaintiff on the docket
sheet in CM/ECF.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that each “Block AA Offender” (other than Plaintiff
Graham) shall advise the Court in writing on or before December 7, 2015, whether he wishes to

3

Effective May 1, 2013, the filing fee for a civil case was increased to $400.00, by the addition of a new
$50.00 administrative fee for filing a civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court. See Judicial
Conference Schedule of Fees - District Court Miscellaneous Fee Schedule, 28 U.S.C. § 1914, No. 14.
A litigant who is granted IFP status, however, is exempt from paying the new $50.00 fee and must pay a
total fee of $350.00.
4
Rule 11 states, in pertinent part: “Every pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed . . . by
a party personally if the party is unrepresented.” FED. R. CIV. P. 11(a). Moreover, a prisoner bringing a
pro se action cannot represent a class of plaintiffs. See Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407
(4th Cir. 1975) (holding it would be plain error to permit imprisoned pro se litigant to represent his fellow
inmates in a class action).

Page 5 of 7

continue as a plaintiff in this group action. If, by that deadline, any non-lead plaintiff has not
communicated with the Court or has indicated in writing that he does not wish to participate in
this action, he will not be considered a party to this action and will not incur a filing fee for this
action.
Any non-lead plaintiff who does wish to participate in this action must so advise the
Court and either prepay the full $400.00 filing fee or file a properly completed IFP motion. Each
plaintiff who chooses to continue as a plaintiff in this action is obligated to pay his filing fee of
$400.00 or file a properly completed IFP Motion on or before December 7, 2015. Failure to do
so does not relieve that plaintiff of the obligation to pay a filing fee, unless he does not respond
to this Order or he submits timely written notice of his intentions not to participate in this action.
In addition, the plaintiffs are again WARNED that future group motions or pleadings that
do not comply with the group pleading requirements discussed in this Order shall be stricken
pursuant to Rule 11(a).
The Clerk is DIRECTED to send a copy of this Order to Plaintiff Graham, who shall be
responsible for routing the Order to the “Block AA Offenders.”
Further, the CLERK is DIRECTED to send a copy of this Order and a blank IFP motion
to each of the following “Block AA Offenders” at St. Clair County Jail: MICHAEL R.
BROCK, FERNANDO MORGAN, JAMAV DELK, JAYLIN DTRUHAN, ARRICK
NEWBERN, TRISTON J. ROBERTS, GERALD WHITTON, II, ANTHONY PARKS,
CHARLES GRIFFIN, TIMOTHY JOHNSON, RICHIE CULBERSON, JAYLEN MAYS,
JAMES DABBS, ERNEST WHITLEY, DANNY JULIAN, BRIAN PURSELL, and
JOHNNIE WILLIAMS. This does not, however, relieve Plaintiff Graham of his responsibility
to notify these individuals of their obligation to communicate with the Court as directed above, if

Page 6 of 7

they wish to participate in this action. Because the Court has no identifying information for these
individuals, such as an identification number or current address, mail sent from the Court to
these individuals at the Jail may not be properly delivered.
Plaintiffs are ADVISED that the complaint is currently awaiting preliminary review by
the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and it has not yet been served on the Defendants.
When this review is completed, a copy of the Court’s Order will be forwarded to each plaintiff
who remains in the action.
Plaintiffs are further ADVISED that each Block AA Offender who chooses to participate
as a plaintiff in this action is under a continuing obligation to keep the Clerk of Court and each
opposing party informed of any change in his address; the Court will not independently
investigate a plaintiff’s whereabouts. This shall be done in writing and not later than 7 days after
a transfer or other change in address occurs. Failure to comply with this Order will cause a delay
in the transmission of court documents and may result in dismissal of this action for want of
prosecution. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 2, 2015
_________________________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
United States District Judge

Page 7 of 7