Long v. Henry County Jail
ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFFS TO COMPLY WITH 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1)-(2) OR PAY THE $400 CIVIL FILING FEE. Signed by Judge James D. Todd on 11/15/17. (mbm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
BRIAN M. LONG, ET AL.,
HENRY COUNTY JAIL,
ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFFS TO COMPLY WITH
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1)-(2) OR PAY THE $400 CIVIL FILING FEE
On November 9, 2017, the Clerk received a letter complaining about various conditions at
the Henry County Correctional Facility (“Jail”) in Paris, Tennessee. (ECF No. 1.) The letter is
signed by Plaintiff Brian M. Long and fifty-five other individuals who are incarcerated at the Jail.1
(Id. at 4-5.) The Court construes the letter as a pro se complaint for violation of civil rights brought
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Although the complaint may be an attempt to file a class action suit, in a class action there
must be a representative party who “will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). The Sixth Circuit has held that “pro se prisoners cannot adequately
represent a class.” Ziegler v. Michigan, 59 F. App’x 622, 624 (6th Cir. 2003); see also Palasty v.
Another individual may have signed only with an “X”. (Id. at 4, #35.) However, that
person is not otherwise named, and the Court has no way to determine his identity. In addition,
some of the signatures on the complaint are fully or partially illegible, but only a few are
accompanied by a printed name. The Clerk will attempt to decipher all of the names, but no
prisoner whose signature is completely illegible will be considered to have signed the complaint.
Hawk, 15 F. App’x 197, 200 (6th Cir. 2001) (“[N]o representative party was available because pro
se prisoners are not able to represent fairly the class.”); Montague v. Schofield, No. 2:14-cv-292,
2015 WL 1879590, at *2 (E.D. Tenn. Apr. 22, 2015) (denying class certification, citing Ziegler and
Palasty). Therefore, this case will not be treated as a class action suit.
No Plaintiff in this case has paid the $400 civil filing fee, and none of them have submitted
applications to proceed in forma pauperis. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 28
U.S.C. §§ 1915(a)-(b), any prisoner bringing a civil action must pay the filing fee required by 28
U.S.C. § 1914(a).2 Although the obligation to pay the fee accrues at the moment the case is filed,
see McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 605 (6th Cir. 1997), partially overruled on other
grounds by LaFountain v. Harry, 716 F.3d 944, 951 (6th Cir. 2013), the PLRA provides the prisoner
the opportunity to make a “down payment” of a partial filing fee and pay the remainder in
installments. Id. at 604. However, in order to take advantage of the installment procedures, the
prisoner must complete and submit to the district court, along with the complaint, an in forma
pauperis affidavit and a certified copy of his inmate trust account statement for the last six months.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2).
Therefore, it is ORDERED that each Plaintiff who signed the complaint shall, within thirty
(30) days after the date of this order, either pay the $400 civil filing fee or submit a properly
completed and executed application to proceed in forma pauperis and a certified copy of his inmate
trust account statement for the last six months.
The civil filing fee is $350. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). However, the Schedule of Fees
set out following the statute also requires the Clerk to collect an additional administrative fee of
$50 for filing any civil case. That additional $50 fee will not apply if Plaintiffs are ultimately
granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
If any Plaintiff fails to comply with this order in a timely manner the Court will dismiss his
claims without further notice for failure to prosecute, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ James D. Todd
JAMES D. TODD
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?