Julian et al v. Whitmer et al

Filing 5

OPINION AND ORDER Dismissing Plaintiff Bruce H. Butler. Signed by District Judge Sean F. Cox. (JMcC)

Case 2:22-cv-12525-SFC-DRG ECF No. 5, PageID.86 Filed 11/17/22 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
EDDIE A. JULIAN-BEY and
BRUCE H. BUTLER,
Plaintiffs,

Case No. 22-cv-12525
Honorable Sean F. Cox

v.
GRETCHEN WHITMER, ET AL.,
Respondent.
/
OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING
PLAINTIFF BRUCE H. BUTLER
This prisoner civil rights action was filed by two prisoner-plaintiffs, Eddie A.
Julian-Bey and Bruce H. Butler.

Julian-Bey and Butler are in the custody of the

Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) and currently confined in the Gus
Harrison Correctional Facility in Adrian, Michigan. The complaint, filed under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, alleges that the defendants (Michigan’s governor and MDOC officials) violated
the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments based on the conditions at the prison and the
defendants’ response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Julian-Bey also alleges that he was
denied doctor-prescribed medication to alleviate chronic pain.
While the joinder of parties is “strongly encouraged” where appropriate in the
interest of judicial economy and fairness, United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383
U.S. 715, 724 (1966), there are practical difficulties inherent in allowing unrepresented
prisoners to join together as plaintiffs in one action. Proctor v. Applegate, 661 F. Supp.
2d 743, 780 (E.D. Mich. 2009) (Borman, J.). These difficulties include circulating papers

Case 2:22-cv-12525-SFC-DRG ECF No. 5, PageID.87 Filed 11/17/22 Page 2 of 2

for all prisoners to sign in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a), the transitory nature of
prison populations, and the potential that a prisoner-plaintiff may be prejudiced by
another’s delay or failure to correct deficiencies in in forma pauperis applications or other
filings. See, e.g., Calhoun v. Washington, No. 21-10476, 2021 WL 1387782, at *2 (E.D.
Mich. Apr. 13, 2021). 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 v. Corzine, No. 08-2265, 2008
WL 2512916, *6 (D.N.J. June 23, 2008)). In sum, prisoners are simply “not in the same
situation as non-prisoner joint plaintiffs; prisoners’ circumstances make joint litigation
exceptionally difficult.” Id. For these reasons, the Court will dismiss Bruce H. Butler
without prejudice.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff Bruce H. Butler is DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 17, 2022

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

2