Brown El et al v. Skeen et al

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk shall STRIKE plaintiff Riccardo Crossland from this action. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall open a new case for plaintiff Riccardo Crossland, utilizing the complaint in the above-c aptioned case. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall file Riccardo Crossland's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. # 3 ] and certified inmate account statement [Doc. #5] in the new action. Riccardo Crossland terminated. Signed by District Judge Jean C. Hamilton on 12/5/12. (copy of order forwarded to Pro-se Writ Clerk)(TRC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

KEITH E. BROWN-EL, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
MELVIN SKEEN, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:12-CV-1680-FRB

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon its own motion. This action was filed jointly
by two prisoners, Keith E. Brown-El and Riccardo Crossland. Multiple prisoners may
not join together in a single lawsuit under Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Georgeoff v. Barnes, 2:09CV14 ERW, 2009 WL 1405497 (E.D. Mo.
2009); Jones v. Abby, 2009 WL 2169894 (E.D. Mo. 2009). As a result, the Court will
strike plaintiff Riccardo Crossland from this action and will order the Clerk to open a
new case for him, pursuant to the instructions set forth below.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“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). Prisoners proceeding
in forma pauperis may pay the fee in installments.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(b).

Implementation of the PLRA was designed to make prisoners feel the deterrent effect
of the filing fee. See e.g., Hampton v. Hobbs, 106 F.3d 1282, 1286 (6th Cir. 1997).
Each individual plaintiff must feel the financial effect of filing a suit in federal court.
See id.; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). As a result, each plaintiff must pay the full filing fee of
$350.
“Multiple 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 (filing fee statute). The requirement of § 1915(b)(1) that
each “prisoner shall be required to 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, 122
S. Ct. 1083, 151 L. Ed. 2d 983 (2002).
In addition, “the impracticalities inherent in multiple-prisoner litigation militate
against the permissive joinder allowed by Rule 20.” Hagwood v. Warden, 2009 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 13108 *5, 2009 WL 427396 *2 (D.N.J. Feb. 19, 2009) (slip copy) (citing
Wasko v. Allen County Jail, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22907, 2006 WL 978956 (N.D.

-2-

Ind. 2006); Swenson v. MacDonald, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5784, 2007 WL 240233
*2-4 (D. Mont. Jan. 30, 2006) (slip copy)).
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.”
Hagwood, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13108 at *6; 2009 WL 427396 at *2.
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 should not be allowed to circumvent the penalties associated with
filing frivolous actions by joining claims under Rule 20.
For these reasons, the Court will not allow plaintiffs Keith E. Brown-El and
Riccardo Crossland to proceed jointly in this action.
Because plaintiff Keith E. Brown-El is the lead plaintiff in this case, the Court
will strike plaintiff Riccardo Crossland from this action. The Court will order the Clerk
to open a separate case for Crossland, utilizing the complaint in the above-captioned

-3-

case, as well as Crossland’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. #3]
and certified inmate account statement [Doc. #5].
Nothing in this Memorandum and Order should be construed as precluding any
or both of the plaintiffs from cooperating to the extent that they are able or as
preventing consolidation of these cases for trial if that becomes appropriate at a later
date.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk shall STRIKE plaintiff Riccardo
Crossland from this action.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall open a new case for plaintiff
Riccardo Crossland, utilizing the complaint in the above-captioned case.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall file Riccardo Crossland’s
motion to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. #3] and certified inmate account statement
[Doc. #5] in the new action.
Dated this 5th day of December, 2012.

/s/Jean C. Hamilton
JEAN C. HAMILTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-4-