United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
STEPHANIE DAWKINS DAVIS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT ,
DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
, AND VACATING ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION
TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF FILING FEE
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
a pro se prisoner civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. §
1983. Plaintiffs are nine inmates who are or were confined at
the Midland County Jail in Michigan. The Defendants, all sued
in their official capacity, are Midland County Sheriff Scott
Stephenson, Lieutenant Administrator Amy Randall, Captain
Jeffrey Derocher, and an unidentified doctor (Jane Doe).
Plaintiffs allege unlawful jail conditions, highlighting
inmates' inability to help other inmates with legal work
and inmates' lack of timely access to medical care.
Plaintiffs also complain of the inclusion of pork in meals,
the cost of hygiene packages, legal copies and mailings, and
the prohibition on attending church services or visiting the
law library when privileges were lost. Plaintiffs are seeking
injunctive relief and monetary damages.
the lead Plaintiff, Deandre Currie-Lamar, has signed the
Complaint. See Dkt. No. 1. The Plaintiffs have filed
a Motion for Appointment of Counsel and a letter indicating
that two of the Plaintiffs have been moved to other
facilities. Dkt. Nos. 5, 6. And again, only Currie-Lamar has
signed the motion and letter. Dkt. Nos. 5, 6. Finally, the
Plaintiffs have not paid the $350.00 filing fee and the
$50.00 administrative fee. Currie-Lamar, however, has
submitted an application to proceed without prepayment of
fees or costs. Dkt. No. 4.
before the Court is the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Appointment of Counsel . The Court will DENY
Plaintiffs' Motion for Appointment of Counsel . The
Court will also DISMISS the Complaint WITHOUT Prejudice ,
and VACATE the Order Granting Plaintiff Currie-Lamar's
Motion to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees or Costs .
Court finds that the Plaintiffs have improperly joined claims
and parties in this action and violated certain filing
requirements. Therefore, the Court will dismiss this case
without prejudice. The Court will first explain the joinder
issues and will then detail the filing deficiencies.
Misjoinder of Claims and Parties
of claims, parties, and remedies is strongly encouraged,
” where appropriate to further judicial economy and
fairness. See United Mine Workers of America v.
Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 724 (1966). Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 20(a)(1) provides that:
[p]ersons may join in one action as plaintiffs if:
(A) they assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in
the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same
transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or
(B) any question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs will
arise in the action.
that Rule, significant practical problems arise when
prisoners jointly commence litigation. See Proctor v.
Applegate, 661 F.Supp.2d 743, 780 (E.D. Mich. 2009)
(noting “pervasive impracticalities associated with
multiple-plaintiff prisoner litigation, which militates
against permissive joinder even if it were otherwise allowed
by Rule 20(a).” (citing Boretsky v. Corzine,
No. 08-2265, 2008 WL 2512916, at *5 (D.N.J. June 23, 2008))).
These impracticalities include, for example, the “need
for each plaintiff to sign every pleading, and the consequent
possibilities that documents may be changed as they are
circulated, or that prisoners may ...