Lebon et al v. Missouri State Public Defender System et al

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER : ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall STRIKE plaintiffsTommy Yarberry, Jacob Meeks, Alex Barragan, Frenchie Bond, Earl Dixion, Carleton J. Sherwood, Sheadrick Coleman, Tyrone Buckley, David Reed, Jr., Carlton Strickland, Scotty Hooe, Stephen D. Green, Raymond Glass, Craig Beck, and Ricky D. Jackson from this action. FURTHER ORDERED that Timothy C. Rice's motion to be added as a party-plaintiff [Doc. #10] is DENIED.. Signed by District Judge Jean C. Hamilton on 10/28/13. (CEL) (cc: movant Rice - Modified on 10/28/2013 (CEL).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

THOMAS PAUL LEBON, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
MISSOURI STATE PUBLIC
DEFENDER SYSTEM, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:13-CV-1834-SPM

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Thomas Paul Lebon, Tommy Yarberry, Jacob Meeks, Alex Barragan, Frenchie
Bond, Earl Dixion, Carleton J. Sherwood, Sheadrick Coleman, Tyrone Buckley,
David Reed, Jr., Carlton Strickland, Scotty Hooe, Stephen D. Green, Raymond Glass,
Craig Beck, and Ricky D. Jackson, all of whom are prisoners confined at the Missouri
Eastern Correctional Center, have jointly filed a complaint seeking relief pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983. In addition, Timothy C. Rice has filed a motion to be added as a
plaintiff to this action [Doc. #10]. Plaintiff Lebon has filed a motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. #2]. Plaintiffs Lebon, Meeks, Yarberry, Strickland,
Barragan, Hooe, and Beck have filed inmate account statements [Docs. #3-#9]. For
the following reasons, plaintiffs will not be permitted to join in a single complaint.

The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) provides 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).
Implementation of the PLRA was designed to make prisoners experience the deterrent
effect of the filing fee. See 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 such, the PLRA’s mandate that each prisoner pay
the full filing fee requires that individual prisoners bring separate actions, rather than
file jointly under Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Hubbard v.Haley,
262 F.3d 1194 (11th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1136 (2002); see also Lilly
v. Ozmint, 2007WL 2021874 *1 (D.S.C. July 6, 2007) (slip copy) (“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”); 28 U.S.C. § 1914.
Additionally, “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) (slip copy) (citing Wasko v. Allen Cnty.
Jail, 2006 WL 978956 (N.D. Ind. 2006); Swenson v. MacDonald, 2006 WL 240233
*2-4 (D. Mont. 2006) (slip copy)).
2

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. These two district courts have also noted that jail
populations are notably transitory, making joint litigation difficult. A
final consideration . . . was the possibility that “coercion, subtle or not,
frequently plays a role in relations between inmates.”
Id.
Last, because § 1915(g) imposes a strike only if the entire action is dismissed,
the joinder of multiple prisoner-plaintiffs under Rule 20would allow some prisoners
to avoid the risk of incurring strikes under § 1915(g) where, for example, only one
inmate’s claim was found to be viable. 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 to proceed jointly in the instant
case. 1 Because Thomas Paul Lebon is the lead plaintiff, the Court will strike Tommy
Yarberry, Jacob Meeks, Alex Barragan, Frenchie Bond, Earl Dixion, Carleton J.
Sherwood, Sheadrick Coleman, Tyrone Buckley, David Reed, Jr., Carlton Strickland,
Scotty Hooe, Stephen D. Green, Raymond Glass, Craig Beck, and Ricky D. Jackson
To the extent that plaintiffs are seeking to bring a class action, their request
to do so is denied. Under Rule 23(a)(4), a class representative must “fairly and
adequately protect the interests of the class.” Additionally, a litigant may bring his
own claims to federal court without counsel, but not the claims of others. See 28
U.S.C. § 1654; see also 7A Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and
Procedure: Civil 3d § 1769.1 (“class representatives cannot appear pro se.”).
1

3

as plaintiffs in this action.2 Similarly, the Court will not allow Timothy Rice to be
added as a plaintiff to this action. Any plaintiff who wishes to pursue his claims in
a separate action may do so by submitting a complaint on the form the Court provides
for filing actions pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint must be accompanied
by either (1) the filing fee of $400.00 or (2) a motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis with a certified copy of the plaintiff’s inmate account statement.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall STRIKE plaintiffs
Tommy Yarberry, Jacob Meeks, Alex Barragan, Frenchie Bond, Earl Dixion,
Carleton J. Sherwood, Sheadrick Coleman, Tyrone Buckley, David Reed, Jr., Carlton
Strickland, Scotty Hooe, Stephen D. Green, Raymond Glass, Craig Beck, and Ricky
D. Jackson from this action.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Timothy C. Rice’s motion to be added as
a party-plaintiff [Doc. #10] is DENIED.
Dated this 28th day of October, 2013.

/s/Jean C. Hamilton
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Striking plaintiffs from the instant action does not count as a “strike”
against them for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
2

4