HUDSON v. MACON COUNTY JAIL ( 2021 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION DONALD LYNN HUDSON, JR., Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:21-cv-00372-TES-CHW MACON COUNTY JAIL, Defendant. ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT Plaintiff Donald Lynn Hudson, Jr., has filed a Complaint seeking relief under 42 U.S.C § 1983 on behalf of himself and a number of other inmates in the Macon County Jail in Oglethorpe, Georgia.1 [Doc. 1]. None of these potential Plaintiffs have paid the $402.00 filing fee for such a complaint or a filed motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this action. The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the “PLRA”) requires that a prisoner bringing a civil action in forma pauperis be responsible for the Court’s filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). Additionally, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has held that prisoners proceeding in forma pauperis are not allowed to join together as plaintiffs in a single lawsuit and pay only a single filing fee. Instead, each prisoner must file his own lawsuit 1 Although Plaintiff addressed his envelope with a private address outside of the jail, he indicates in his pleading that he is currently being held in the Macon County Jail. and pay the full filing fee. Hubbard v. Haley, 262 F.3d 1194, 1198 (11th Cir. 2001) (affirming the district court’s dismissal of a multi-plaintiff action under the PLRA on the ground “that each plaintiff had to file a separate complaint and pay a separate filing fee”). As the Eleventh Circuit noted in Hubbard, requiring each plaintiff to pay the full filing fee is consistent with Congress’ purpose of imposing costs on prisoners to deter frivolous suits. Id. at 1197–98. Plaintiffs, therefore, may not proceed in an action together in forma pauperis. As it does not appear from the applicable statutes of limitations would bar Plaintiffs’ claims if they must be refiled, the Court now DISMISSES the Complaint without prejudice in its entirety. Each Plaintiff, including Hudson, may file a separate complaint, in which he asserts only claims personal to him, if he chooses to do so. Each Plaintiff must also either pay the filing fee or submit a proper and complete motion to proceed in forma pauperis with his individual complaint. Further, to the extent that Plaintiff Hudson seeks to bring these claims as a class action, a pro se plaintiff may not represent the interest of other prisoners. See e.g., Wallace v. Smith, 145 F. App’x 300, 302 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (citing Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975) (finding it “plain error to permit [an] imprisoned litigant who is unassisted by counsel to represent his fellow inmates in a class action”)). This same principle prevents a pro se Plaintiff, like Plaintiff Hudson, from representing some or all of the other inmates who are named as Plaintiffs in this case. See Massimo v. Henderson, 468 F.2d 1209, 1210 (5th Cir. 1972) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal of the portion of a prisoner’s complaint that sought relief on behalf of the prisoner’s fellow inmates).2 Thus, for the reasons previously stated, this action is DISMISSED in its entirety without prejudice. SO ORDERED, this 6th day of December, 2021. S/ Tilman E. Self, III__________________ TILMAN E. SELF, III, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), the Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit rendered prior to October 1, 1981.