Burroughs et al v. County of Nassau et al

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM & ORDER re: 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Motions for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis are GRANTED. Plaintiffs' request to appoint a representative to sign papers filed with the Court is DENIED. The C ourt ORDERS expedited personal service of the Summonses, the Complaint, the Motion for Preliminary Injunction, the request for an Order to Show Cause, and this Order by the U.S. Marshal Service. Ordered by Judge Joanna Seybert on 12/17/2013. (Nohs, Bonnie)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------X
CRAIG BURROUGHS, EDDIE MURDOCK,
GARY WALSH, JEROME KOWALSKI,
KEITH ADDISON, MICHAEL DOLLISON,
RAMEL NELLUMS, DANIEL MILLER,
LEO DUCHNOWSKI, CRAIG THURSTON,
WILLIAM COWAN, KURTIS PHILLIP,
JAMES SUTHERLAND, JAMEL WILLIAMS,
KEVIN FARRELLY,

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
13-CV-6784(JS)(WDW)

Plaintiffs,
-againstCOUNTY OF NASSAU, MICHAEL SPOSATO,
Sheriff of Nassau County,
Defendants.
----------------------------------X
APPEARANCES
For Plaintiffs:
Craig Burroughs, #13005758, pro se
Eddie Murdock, #13003401, pro se
Gary Walsh, #13003699, pro se
Jerome Kowalski, #13004867, pro se
Keith Addison, #13004867, pro se
Michael Dollison, #12009667, pro se
Ramel Nellums, #13007957, pro se
Daniel Miller, #12003565,
pro se
Leo Duchnowski, #13004975, pro se
Craig Thurston, #13003524, pro se
William Cowan, #13006769, pro se
Kurtis Phillip, #13003851, pro se
James Sutherland, #13005724, pro se
Jamel Williams, #13007156, pro se
Kevin Farrelly, #13004238, pro se
Nassau County Correctional Center
100 Carman Avenue
East Meadow, NY 11554
For Defendants:

No appearances.

SEYBERT, District Judge:
On

November

18,

2013,

plaintiffs,

a

group

fifteen

incarcerated pro se plaintiffs (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), filed
a

civil

rights

Complaint

in

this

Court

accompanied

by

an

application to proceed in forma pauperis for each Plaintiff with
the exception of Plaintiff Daniel Miller.1

The Complaint is

Given Miller’s long history of frivolous litigation, the Court
barred him from filing in forma pauperis complaints under the
Prison Litigation Reform Act’s “Three Strikes” provision. See
Miller v. Cnty. of Nassau, No. 12-CV-4159, 2012 WL 4370125
(E.D.N.Y. Sept. 21, 2012); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Miller is no stranger to this Court. Since 2000, Miller has
filed twenty in forma pauperis civil actions, almost all of
which have been dismissed: Miller v. United States, No. 00–CV–
3088(CBA) (E.D.N.Y. 2001) (withdrawn); Miller v. Cnty. of
Nassau, No. 00–CV–6124(JS)(WDW) (E.D.N.Y. 2001) (dismissed for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted);
Crosby v. Walsh, No. 03–CV–4897(ARR) (E.D.N.Y. 2005) (dismissed
in forma pauperis complaint filed by four inmates, including
Miller, for failure to state a claim); Miller v. Reilly, No. 05–
CV–0611(JS)(WDW) (E.D.N.Y. 2005) (settled); Miller v. Cnty. of
Nassau, 467 F. Supp. 2d 308 (E.D.N.Y. 2006) (dismissed for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted);
Miller v. Reilly, No. 06–CV–3727(ADS) (E.D.N.Y. 2008) (settled);
Miller v. Reily, No. 06–CV–6485(JS) (E.D.N.Y. 2007) (withdrawn);
Miller v. Zerillo, No. 07–CV–1687(JS)(WDW) (E.D.N.Y. 2009)
(dismissed as moot and unexhausted under the PLRA); Miller v.
Zerillo, No. 07–CV–1719(JS) (E.D.N.Y. 2008) (dismissed as moot
and unexhausted under the PLRA); Miller v. Lindsay, No. 07–CV–
2556(JS) (E.D.N.Y. 2009) (dismissed as moot); Miller v.
Alexander, No. 07–CV–3533(JS) (E.D.N.Y. 2008) (dismissed as
moot); Miller v. Reilly, No. 08–CV–1863(TCP) (E.D.N.Y. 2009)
(dismissed as unexhausted and moot); In re Daniel Miller, No.
12–MC–0512(JBW) (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (case closed by Order dated
August 6, 2012 and Plaintiff’s submission concerning “Terrorist
Acts” was forwarded to the U.S. Marshal); Miller v. Spizatto,
No. 12–CV–2511(JS) (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (dismissed unexhausted 28
U.S.C. § 2241 petition claiming excessive bail); Miller v. Cnty.
of Nassau, No. 12–CV–4164(JS)(WDW) (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (dismissed
without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee); Miller v.
1

2

accompanied by a Motion for Preliminary Injunction, a request for
an Order to Show Cause, and a Motion to Appoint a Plaintiff as the
Representative Party to Sign Motions on Behalf of all Plaintiffs.
(Docket Entries 17, 18.)
Upon review of Plaintiffs’ declarations in support of
their respective applications to proceed in forma pauperis (other
than Miller), the Court finds that each Plaintiff’s financial
status qualifies him to commence this action without prepayment of
the filing fees.2

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).

Accordingly,

Plaintiffs’ applications to proceed in forma pauperis are GRANTED.
In addition, because Plaintiffs are proceeding pro se,
they cannot represent anyone other than themselves.

Miller, 2012

WL 4370125, at *1 (citing Moore v. T-Mobile USA, No. 10-CV-0527,
2011 WL 609818, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 15, 2011)).

Accordingly,

Plaintiffs’ request to appoint a representative to sign papers
filed with the Court is DENIED.

Smith, No. 12–CV–4378(JS)(WDW) (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (same); Miller v.
Cnty. of Nassau, No. 12–CV–4466(JS)(WDW) (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (same);
Miller v. Cnty. of Nassau, No. 12–CV–4430(JS)(WDW) (E.D.N.Y.
2012) (same); Miller v. Cnty. of Nassau, No. 12–CV–4549(JS)(WDW)
(E.D.N.Y. 2012) (same); and Miller v. Cnty. of Nassau, No. 12–
CV–4550(JS)(WDW) (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (same).
Miller paid his pro rata share of the filing fee on December 9,
2013.
2

3

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ applications to
proceed in forma pauperis are GRANTED and Plaintiffs’ Motion to
Appoint a Plaintiff as the Representative Party to Sign Motions on
Behalf of All Plaintiffs is DENIED.

The Court ORDERS expedited

personal service of the Summonses, the Complaint, the Motion for
Preliminary Injunction, the request for an Order to Show Cause,
and this Order by the United States Marshal Service without
prepayment of the filing fee.

SO ORDERED.

Dated:

/s/ JOANNA SEYBERT______
Joanna Seybert, U.S.D.J.

December
17 , 2013
Central Islip, NY

4