Jo v. Six Unknown Names Agents et al

Filing 2

ORDER ENTERED: The Clerk of the Court is directed to open a separate action in the name of Young Yil Jo and to docket in that case a copy of the complaint submitted by Mr. Becker and a copy of this order. Plaintiffs Becker and Jo are granted provisi onal leave to proceed in forma pauperis in their respective cases. The clerk's office is to provide each plaintiff with a form complaint for filing a Bivens action and a form motion for seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Each plaintif f is granted twenty (20) days from the date of this order to submit in their respective case: (1) a signed form complaint with sufficient allegations to present a plausible claim for relief against the named defendants; and (2) the $350.00 distr ict court filing fee OR a signed form motion under 28 U.S.C. 1915 with the certified financial records required by 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(2) attached. The failure of either plaintiff to comply in a timely manner can result in their respective complaint being dismissed without further prior notice. Signed by Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 1/27/2012. (Mailed to pro se party Benjamin Dyck Becker by regular mail.) (smnd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

BENJAMIN DYCK BECKER and
YOUNG YIL JO
Plaintiffs,
v.

CASE NO. 12-3024-SAC

SIX UNKNOWN NAMES AGENTS, et al,
Defendant.

ORDER
Before the court is a pro se complaint submitted for filing without prepayment of the
$350.00 district court filing fee. The two plaint named in the compla are both prisoners
iffs
int
incarcerated in a federal correctional facility in Big Springs, Texas.
Separate Actions are Required
The court first finds the prisoner plaintiffs must proceed in separate actions.

A pro

se litigant who is not an attorney cannot represent another pro se party. See 28 U.S.C. §
1654 (“parties may plead and conduct their own case personally or by counsel”). Also, as
s
amended by the Prison Litigation Reform Act in 1996, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) requires a
prisoner to pay the full district court filing fee when seeking relief in federal court. Courts
examining the impact of multiple plaintiffs on this statutory requirement have decided that
prisoner plaintiffs may not unde rmine this statutory obligation by joining in the filing of a
single action, and have held that each prisoner plaintiff must pay the full district court filing
fee in separate actions. See e.g. Hubbard v. Haley, 262 F.3d 1194 (11th Cir.2001).
Compliance with Court Rules is Required
The court next finds each complaint is s
ubject to being summarily dismissed without
prejudice for the following reasons.

The complaint is not submitted on a cour t approved form, as required by rules of
practice and procedure for this district. See D.Kan.Rule 9.1(a)(prisoners seeking relief in
habeas corpus for for civil rights violations must submit their petition or complaint on court
approved forms).
The complaint does not contai n the si gnature of the pro se pl aintiff, contrary to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(a); and D.Kan.Rule 5.1(b).
And, neither pro se plaintiff submitted an executed form motion for seeking leave to
proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 without prepayment of the district court
filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) to commence an action in federal court.
Screening of the Complaint, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A
Even if either plaintiff sa
tisfies the requirements stated above, the court further finds
the instant pro se complaint is subject t o being dismissed as stating no claim for relief
because it presents no intelligible or cognizable constitutional claim against any defendant,
and amendment of the complaint to cure this obvious defect appears clearly futile. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and (b)(court to screen civil complaint filed by a prisoner to ide

ntify

cognizable claims and to dismiss the complaint or any portion thereof that is (1) frivolous,
malicious or fails to statea claim, or (2) seeks damages from a defendantmmune from such
i
relief).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
(1) the Clerk of the Court is directed toopen a separate action in the name of Young
Yil Jo, and to docket in that case a copy of the complaint submitted by Mr. Becker, and a
copy of this Order;
(2) plaintiffs Becker and Jo are granted prov
isional leave to proceed in forma pauperis
in their respective cases; and
(3) the clerk’s office is to provide each
plaintiff with a form co
mplaint for filing a Bivens
action and a form motion for seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that each plaintiff is granted twenty (20) days from the

2

date of this order to submit in their respective case:
(1) a signed form complaint withsufficient allegations to present a plausible claim for
relief against the named defendants; AND
(2) the $350.00 district court filing fee OR a signed form motion under 28 U.S.C. §
1915 with the certified financial records required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) attached.
The failure of either plaintiff to comply in timely manner can result in their respective
a
complaint being dismissed without further prior notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: This 27th day of January 2012 at Topeka, Kansas.

s/ Sam A. Crow
SAM A. CROW
U.S. Senior District Judge

3