Bowman et al v. Federal Bureau of Prisons et al
Filing
4
ORDER ENTERED: Plaintiff Mikeal Glenn Stine is dismissed from the instant complaint. The clerk's office is to create a separate case with Mikeal Glenn Stine as the sole plaintiff, using copies of this order and the pleadings filed in the instan t action. Each plaintiff in the two separate cases is granted twenty (20) days to pay the $350.00 filing fee in their separate case, or to submit a form motion for seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. 1915. Signed by Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 5/10/2011. (Mailed to pro se parties Christopher Wayne Bowman and Mikeal Glenn Stine by regular mail.) (smnd)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
CHRISTOPHER WAYNE BOWMAN and
MIKEAL GLENN STINE
Plaintiffs,
v.
CASE NO.11-3047-SAC
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, et al.,
Defendants.
O R D E R
This matter comes before the court on a pro se complaint
submitted by two prisoners incarcerated in a federal penitentiary in
Florence, Colorado, naming the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and
BOP
Regional
Director
Michael
K.
Nalley
as
defendants.
plaintiffs signed the complaint as supplemented.
Both
The $350.00
district court filing fee has not been paid, and neither plaintiff
has submitted a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
without prepayment of that filing fee.
A prisoner seeking relief in any civil action submitted to the
federal court must pay the full district court filing fee.
U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).
28
The circuit courts are split on the impact of
this statutory requirement when a case involves multiple prisoner
plaintiffs, and this remains an open question in this circuit.
Woodruff
v.
Wyoming,
49
Fed.Appx
199,
202
n.1
See
(10th
Cir.2002)(unpublished)(recognizing circuit disagreement and citing
cases).
This court has held that multiple prisoner plaintiffs are
each responsible for paying the full district court filing fee, and
must proceed in separate actions. See Hershberger v. Evercom, Inc.,
Case
No.
07-3152-SAC,
2008
WL
45693
(D.Kan.,
Jan.
2,
2008)(unpublished); Horton v. Evercom, Inc., Case No. 07-3183-SAC,
2008 WL 45738 (D.Kan., Jan. 2, 2008)(unpublished).
The court thus directs the clerk’s office to dismiss Mikeal
Glenn Stine as a plaintiff in the present action, and to create a
new case with Mikeal Glenn Stine as the sole plaintiff using copies
of this order and the pleadings filed thus far in the instant
record.
Unless any plaintiff elects to file a notice of voluntary
dismissal in his separate case, each plaintiff is granted twenty
(20) days to pay the $350.00 filing fee or to submit an executed and
properly supported form motion for seeking leave to proceed in forma
pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.1
The failure to do so in a timely
manner may result in the dismissal of that case without prejudice,
and without further prior notice to the plaintiff in that action.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the plaintiff Mikeal Glenn Stine
is dismissed from the instant complaint, and that the clerk’s office
is to create a separate case with Mikeal Glenn Stine as the sole
plaintiff, using copies of this order and the pleadings filed in the
instant action.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that each plaintiff in the two separate
cases is granted twenty (20) days to pay the $350.00 filing fee in
1
See D.Kan. Rule 9.1(g)(court form to be used by prisoner
seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis). See also 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(2)(a prisoner must also submit a certified copy of his or
her institutional account for the six months immediately preceding
the filing of the action, from an appropriate official from each
prison in which the inmate is or was incarcerated).
2
their separate case, or to submit a form motion for seeking leave to
proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
The clerk’s office is to provide each plaintiff with a form
motion for filing under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:
This 10th day of May 2011 at Topeka, Kansas.
s/ Sam A. Crow
SAM A. CROW
U.S. Senior District Judge
3
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?