McGee v. Centurion Medical Services et al

Filing 21

ORDER denying 19 Motion to Add Plaintiffs. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker on 12/11/17. (RLW)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CHARLES L. McGEE, #L7157
VERSUS

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17-cv-224-LG-RHW

CENTURION MEDICAL SERVICES, et al.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION [19] TO ADD PLAINTIFFS
This cause comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion [19] to Add Plaintiffs filed
December 1, 2017. Having reviewed the Motion [19], the record, and relevant case law,
Plaintiff’s Motion [19] will be denied.
The enactment of the “Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995” (PLRA) militates against
multi-plaintiff prisoner complaints. For example, prisoner plaintiffs proceeding in forma
pauperis (“IFP”) are required to pay the full amount of the filing fee and costs. 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(b)(1) and (f)(2)(A). Prisoner plaintiffs who have on three or more prior occasions,
brought frivolous or malicious complaints or complaints which failed to state a claim may not
proceed IFP. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Additionally, multi-prisoner plaintiff complaints present a
variety of administrative and logistical problems not associated with other civil actions. See
Beaird v. Lappin, No. 3:06-cv-967, 2006 WL 2051034, *3 (N.D. Tex. July 24, 2006) (citations
omitted) (noting “impracticalities to include possible transfers of some plaintiffs, security, the
need for each plaintiff to sign his own pleading and represent himself, the possibility of changes
to documents during circulation among the plaintiffs, the possibility of coercion by other
prisoners, and issues raised by the inmates’ desire to meet within the prison to discuss joint
litigation”).

Moreover, “like all persons who claim a deprivation of constitutional rights,” each plaintiff
is “required to prove some violation of [his] personal rights.” Coon v. Ledbetter, 780 F.2d 1158,
1160-61 (5th Cir. 1986) (citations omitted). Commingling the various claims of multiple
plaintiffs makes it difficult for the court to discern how the alleged constitutional violation
affected each plaintiff. Meritorious claims may be obscured by the frivolous.
With these concerns in mind, and with the objective of achieving judicial economy and
maintaining efficient control of its docket, it is appropriate to deny Plaintiff’s request to add
Plaintiffs in this civil action. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion [19] to add Plaintiffs is denied.
SO ORDERED, this the 11th day of December, 2017.

s/ Robert H. Walker
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2