Edwards, et al v. Macomb County Jail

Filing 7

ORDER of Summary Dismissal Without Prejudice. Signed by District Judge Sean F. Cox. (JMcC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

DWAYNE EDWARDS and
CARIBE SANFORD,
Case Number: 2:16-CV-10404
Plaintiff,
HONORABLE SEAN F. COX
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

v.
MACOMB COUNTY JAIL,
Defendants.
/

ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
I.

Introduction
This is a civil rights case filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by two individuals who are

incarcerated at the Macomb County Jail. Plaintiff Edwards has filed an affidavit of
indigency (ECF No. 2). Plaintiff Sanford has not. Plaintiffs alleged they are being denied
sufficient access to the law library. They contend that the law library is essentially
useless because the materials are outdated and those materials that are present are missing
pages. Finally, they contend that the prison grievance procedure is inadequate to address
their complaints. They seek several reforms of the prison library and of the prison
grievance procedure. The Court has reviewed the complaint and will dismiss the matter
without prejudice. Plaintiffs may proceed by filing individual complaints.
II.

Discussion
The joinder of claims, parties, and remedies is “strongly encouraged” where

appropriate in the interest of judicial economy and fairness. Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 20(a)(1)
provides: “Persons may join in one action as plaintiffs if: (A) they assert any right to
relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same
transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and (B) any question of
law or fact common to all plaintiffs will arise in the action.” Nevertheless, courts have
recognized that allowing pro se prisoners to file a joint complaint raises several practical
problems. There are “pervasive impracticalities associated with multiple-plaintiff
prisoner litigation, which militates against permissive joinder even if it were otherwise
allowed by Rule 20(a).” Proctor v. Applegate, 661 F. Supp. 2d 743, 780 (E.D. Mich.
2009) (Borman, J.). When prisoners attemptto bring a pro se lawsuit jointly, several
problems, including the “need for each plaintiff to sign every pleading, and the
consequent possibilities that documents may be changed as they are circulated, or that
prisoners may seek to compel prison authorities to permit them to gather to discuss the
joint litigation.” Id. Moreover, allowing multiple prisoner-plaintiffs to proceed in a
single action “invites violations of Rule 11(a), which requires every pleading to be signed
by all pro se plaintiffs.” Id. Multiple-plaintiff pro se prisoner cases can also often create
the risk that some prisoners may attempt to file pleadings on behalf of other plaintiffs
without their consent. Id. An additional problem with multi-plaintiff litigation in the
prisoner context is that “jail populations are notably transitory, making joint litigation
difficult.” Id. (quoting Boretsky v. Corzine, No. 08-2265, 2008 WL 2512916, *5
(D.N.J.2008)); see also White v. Tennessee Bd. of Probation and Paroles, No. 06-27842

B/P, 2007 WL 1309402 (W.D.Tenn. May 3, 2007) (“[I]t is administratively impractical to
permit five inmates at three institutions to litigate their claims in a single action”). In
addition, the “‘need for resolution of individualized questions of fact and law surrounding
the requirement for exhaustion of administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a),’”
contributes to the difficulties of multiple-plaintiff pro se prisoner cases. Proctor, 661 F.
Supp. 2d at 780 (quoting Boretsky, 2008 WL 2512916 at * 6). Prisoners are simply “not
in the same situation as non-prisoner joint plaintiffs; prisoners’ circumstances make joint
litigation exceptionally difficult.” Id.
While misjoinder of parties is not normally sufficient to dismiss an action in its
entirety, several factors counsel in favor of a dismissal in this case. Neither plaintiff has
filed the appropriate papers to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff Sanford will likely be
transferred into a Michigan Department of Corrections facility soon as he appears to have
entered a guilty plea on February 10, 2016, to uttering and publishing and fourth habitual
offender. Plaintiff Sanford’s transfer would render his claims moot. His transfer would
complicate a multiple-plaintiff proceeding. This Court believes that the best course of
action is to dismiss the complaint without prejudice; each plaintiff may file in his own
name only, in the federal district court which has the appropriate venue over his claims.
See e.g. Fuller v. Heyns, No. 2:12-12371; 2012 WL 2374222 (E.D. Mich. June 22, 2012).

3

III.

Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the complaint DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE to the plaintiffs each filing individual complaints on their own behalf.

Dated: March 21, 2016

S/ Sean F. Cox
Sean F. Cox
U. S. District Judge

I hereby certify that on March 21, 2016, the foregoing document was served on counsel
of record via electronic means and upon Dwayne Edwards via First Class mail at the
address below:
DWAYNE EDWARDS 26404
MACOMB COUNTY JAIL
P.O. BOX 2308
MT. CLEMENS, MI 48043

S/ J. McCoy
Case Manager

4