-BHH Regan v. Major et al

Filing 1

ORDER: The Clerk of Court is directed to assign separate civil action numbersto the three (3) other inmates whose signatures appear on the complaint filed in civil action number 8:10-2580-RMG-BHH. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on October 25, 2010. (ncha, )

courts, however, have addressed the issue. See Burke v. Helman, 208 F.R.D. 246 (C.D. Illinois 2002)(collecting cases). In Hubbard v. Haley, 262 F.3d 1194 (I Ith Cir. 2001), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that multiple prisoners may not join in one action or one appeal. Additionally, each plaintiffs claims are unique to the particular plaintiff. Any damages, if awarded, would need to be determined individually. Furthermore, the court may be presented with a situation where some plaintiffs have complied with the exhaustion requirement of the PLRA and others have not. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a)(''No action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted"). Just as payment of one fee does not cover multiple plaintiffs under the PLRA, exhaustion of administrati ve remedies by one prisoner does not meet the exhaustion requirement for all of the plaintiffs. Each individual plaintiffis required to comply with the exhaustion requirement. See Porter v. Nuss/e, 534 U.S. 516, 524 (2002)(exhaustion is required in all actions brought with respect to prison conditions); Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85 (2006)(PLRA makes "proper" exhaustion mandatory). Finally, each plaintiffmust be notified separately of court documents, orders, and deadlines. See Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309, 310 (4th CiT. 1975). As a result, the court concludes that each plaintiffs' claims will require individualized determinations. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to assign separate civil action numbers to the three (3) other irunates whose signatures appear on the complaint. The defendants in the new cases will be the same defendants listed in the above-captioned case. The Clerk of Court is authorized to re-file the complaint from the above-captioned matter in the new cases. Thus, the initial document entries on the docket in the three additional cases will be this order and the original complaint. The Clerk of Court is authorized to determine the most efficient way and time for assigning case numbers, and entering the new case numbers, party infonnation, and pleading infonnation on the court's electronic case management system. In the above-captioned case and in the three new cases, each plaintiff will have the benefit of the "prison mail-box rule". See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988). In the above-captioned case, Sean M. Northrop will remain as the sole plaintiff. After the new cases are docketed, the assigned Magistrate Judge is authorized to issue orders pursuant to the General Order,In Re: Procedures in Civil Actions Filed by Prisoner Pro Se Litigants, 3:07-mc-5014-JFA (D.S.C. Sept. 18,2007), and conduct initial~eVie mpliance with 28 . U.S.C. § 1915 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. \/':)

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

~
Richard M. Gergel United States District Judge

Charleston l South Carolina October 11, 2010

2