Stradford v. Lombardi et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk shall STRIKE plaintiff Geanard Howard from this action. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall open a new case for plaintiff Howard, utilizing the complaint in the above-captioned case. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall file the complaint bearing Howards name as plaintiff and Howards motion to proceed in forma pauperis and certified inmate account statement in the new action. Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 1/28/2015. (KMS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
RICKY STRADFORD, et al.,
GEORGE A. LOMBARDI, et al.,
No. 4:15CV17 CEJ
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This action was filed jointly by two prisoners. 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 one of the plaintiffs from this case and order the
Clerk to open a separate case for that plaintiff.
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
1281, 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).
“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. 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 to proceed jointly in this action.
Additionally, each plaintiff’s complaint will be considered separately and each plaintiff will be
required to pay the filing fee for his complaint.
Because plaintiff Ricky Stradford is the lead plaintiff in this case, the Court will strike
plaintiff Geanard Howard from this action. The Court will order the Clerk to open a separate
case for plaintiff Howard, utilizing the complaint in the above-captioned case.
Nothing in this Memorandum and Order should be construed as precluding either 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.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk shall STRIKE plaintiff Geanard Howard
from this action.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall open a new case for plaintiff Howard,
utilizing the complaint in the above-captioned case.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall file the complaint bearing Howard’s
name as plaintiff and Howard’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and certified inmate
account statement in the new action.
Dated this 28th day of January, 2015.
CAROL E. JACKSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?