Davis v. Long et al

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to STRIKE plaintiffs James Mitchell, Talmadge Graham, Daryl Davis, and Vincent E. Sargent from this action. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to open new cases for plaintiffs James Mitchell, Talmadge Graham, Daryl Davis, and Vincent E. Sargent, utilizing the complaint in the above-captioned case.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to file the appropriate motions to proceed in forma pauperis in the new actions. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 1/17/17. (CSG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
DAMON JOHNSON, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
STEVE LONG, et al.,
Defendants,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:16-CV-293 SNLJ

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon its own motion. This action was filed jointly by five
prisoners. This Court does not permit multiple prisoners to join together in a single lawsuit
under Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See, e.g., Georgeoff v. Barnes, 2:09CV14
ERW, 2009 WL 1405497 (E.D. Mo. 2009). As a result, the Court will strike four of the
plaintiffs from this case and order the Clerk to open new cases for the stricken plaintiffs.
There are several reasons for this. First, the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”)
requires that “if a prisoner brings a civil action or files an appeal in forma pauperis, the prisoner
shall be required to pay the full amount of a filing fee.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). However,
“[m]ultiple filing fees cannot be collected for one case filed by multiple plaintiffs, thus the
PLRA’s requirement that a prisoner pay the full fee for filing a lawsuit would be circumvented in
a multiple plaintiff case subject to the PLRA.” Lilly v. Ozmint, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49153 *4,
2007 WL 2021874 *1 (D.S.C. July 6, 2007) (slip copy); see 28 U.S.C. § 1914. Therefore, the
requirement of § 1915(b)(1) that each prisoner pay the full amount of a filing fee requires
individual prisoners to bring separate suits, rather than file jointly under Rule 20. Hubbard v.
Haley, 262 F.3d 1194 (11th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1136 (2002).

Additionally, courts have noted that “the impracticalities inherent in multiple-prisoner
litigation militate against the permissive joinder allowed by Rule 20.” Hagwood v. Warden,
2009 WL 427396 *2 (D.N.J. Feb. 19, 2009).
Among the difficulties noted by these courts are the need for each plaintiff to sign
the pleadings, 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. Other courts have also noted
that jail populations are notably transitory, making joint litigation difficult. A final
consideration for one court was the possibility that coercion, subtle or not,
frequently plays a role in relations between inmates.
Id.
Finally, joinder of prisoners’ claims under Rule 20 would allow prisoners to avoid the
risk of incurring strikes under § 1915(g) so long as one of those prisoners’ claims is viable,
because § 1915(g) imposes a strike only if the entire action is dismissed. Prisoners may not
circumvent the penalties associated with filing frivolous actions by joining claims under Rule 20.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to STRIKE plaintiffs James
Mitchell, Talmadge Graham, Daryl Davis, and Vincent E. Sargent from this action.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to open new cases for plaintiffs
James Mitchell, Talmadge Graham, Daryl Davis, and Vincent E. Sargent, utilizing the complaint
in the above-captioned case.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to file the appropriate motions
to proceed in forma pauperis in the new actions.
Dated this 17th day of January, 2017.

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2