Myles v. Sollie

Filing 6

ORDER DENYING CLASS ACTION REQUEST re 1 Complaint: For the reasons set out in the Order, Plaintiff Myles's request in his Complaint seeking certification of a class action is denied. The other 23 inmates who signed the Complaint will not be added as Plaintiffs in this civil action. If any one of the other 23 inmates wishes to pursue a civil action concerning the conditions of confinement at the Lauderdale County Jail, that individual may contact the Clerk's Office, 501 E. Court St reet, Suite 2.500, Jackson, Mississippi, 39207 and request the form used to file a civil action. Each inmate filing an individual civil action will be required to pay the filing fee of $400.00 or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by District Judge Daniel P. Jordan III on April 11, 2017.(SP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION
DANYALL DEVICCIO MYLES
V.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-cv-25-DPJ-FKB

BILLIE SOLLIE

DEFENDANT
ORDER DENYING CLASS ACTION REQUEST

This cause is before the Court, sua sponte, for consideration of Plaintiff Danyall Deviccio
Myles’s request to “form a class action lawsuit.” Compl. [1] at 8. Plaintiff’s Complaint [1] has a
list of signatures of 23 other inmates housed at Lauderdale County Jail in B-Tower who wish to
pursue a Complaint against Billie Sollie, Sheriff of Lauderdale County, Mississippi, and
Lauderdale County, Mississippi.1 Id. at 8–9. Myles states that “[t]his statement and list of
signatures hereby states that all prisoners listed in this petition stand by and confirm that the
complaints listed in this formal written petition are true and were either witnesse[s] and/or
experienced personally . . . the conditions listed during their incarceration.” Id. at 8.
Having considered the Complaint, the Court finds that Myles’s attempt to institute a class
action should be denied but that he may continue to seek relief in his individual capacity.
Additionally, the Court finds that the claims of the 23 other inmates who signed the Complaint
will not be added as Plaintiffs in this civil action.
I.

Class Action
[T]he class action device exists primarily, if not solely, to achieve a measure of
judicial economy, which benefits the parties as well as the entire judicial system.
It preserves the resources of both the courts and the parties by permitting issues
affecting all class members to be litigated in an efficient, expedited, and
manageable fashion.
1

Even though there are additional signatures attached to the Complaint, the style of the case
indicates that Danyall Deviccio Myles is the only Plaintiff and that Billie Sollie is the only
Defendant. Compl. [1] at 1–2.

Allison v. Citgo Petroleum Corp., 151 F.3d 402, 410 (5th Cir. 1998). To obtain class
certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), the plaintiffs must satisfy the
following requirements:
(1) numerosity (a ‘class [so large] that joinder of all members is impracticable’);
(2) commonality (‘questions of law or fact common to the class’); (3) typicality
(named parties’ claims or defenses ‘are typical . . . of the class’); and (4)
adequacy of representation (representatives ‘will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class’).
Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 613 (1997) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)).
Additionally, Plaintiff must show that the action is maintainable pursuant to Rule 23(b)(1), (2) or
(3). Id. at 614.
Even though Myles asserts that there are questions of law common to all, he has not
demonstrated that the remaining requirements for class certification are met. Therefore, the
denial of class certification is appropriate. See Berger v. Compaq Comput. Corp., 257 F.3d 475,
479 n.4 (5th Cir. 2001) (citations omitted) (stating that a party seeking certification bears the
burden of proof to establish that all four requirements of Rule 23(a) are satisfied). Having
reviewed the Complaint, the Court finds that it does not present allegations and arguments to
meet the requirements of Rule 23(a). As a result, this civil action may proceed but will not be
treated as a class action.
II.

Separate Complaints
Additionally, the Court must consider, sua sponte, whether Myles and the 23 other

inmates should be required to proceed in separate civil actions. 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
2

amount of the filing fee and costs. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(b)(1) and (f)(2)(A) (2012). 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. Id. § 1915(g). Additionally,
multi-prisoner-plaintiff complaints present a variety of administrative, 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) (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 (5th Cir. 1986). Commingling the various claims of multiple plaintiffs makes it
difficult for courts to discern how the alleged constitutional violations affected each plaintiff.
Meritorious claims may be obscured by the frivolous.
Bearing in mind these concerns and the objectives of judicial economy and efficiency,
the Court finds it appropriate to require that the other 23 inmates who signed the Complaint file a
separate, individual civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including paying the filing fee of
$400.00 or filing a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
1. That Plaintiff Myles’s request in his Complaint [1] seeking certification of a class
action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 is denied.
2. That the other 23 inmates who signed the Complaint will not be added as Plaintiffs in
this civil action.

3

3. That if any one of the other 23 inmates wishes to pursue a civil action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 concerning the conditions of confinement at the Lauderdale County Jail, that
individual may contact the Clerk’s Office, 501 E. Court Street, Suite 2.500, Jackson, Mississippi,
39207 and request the form used to file a civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Each inmate
filing an individual civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 will be required to pay the filing
fee of $400.00 or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 11th day of April, 2017.
s/ Daniel P. Jordan III
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4