Filed: Dec. 21, 2018
Latest Update: Dec. 21, 2018
Summary: ORDER JAMES E. GRAHAM , Magistrate Judge . Proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (IFP), William Lloyd Holtzclaw's Complaint for violations of the Eight Amendment and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was greenlit for service on prison staff. Docs. 9 & 11. He now seeks to amend his Complaint to add two fellow wheelchair-bound prisoners as plaintiffs, perhaps contemplating a class action of sorts. Doc. 12. The plain language of the Prison Reform Litigation Act (PLRA) requires that
Summary: ORDER JAMES E. GRAHAM , Magistrate Judge . Proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (IFP), William Lloyd Holtzclaw's Complaint for violations of the Eight Amendment and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was greenlit for service on prison staff. Docs. 9 & 11. He now seeks to amend his Complaint to add two fellow wheelchair-bound prisoners as plaintiffs, perhaps contemplating a class action of sorts. Doc. 12. The plain language of the Prison Reform Litigation Act (PLRA) requires that e..
More
ORDER
JAMES E. GRAHAM, Magistrate Judge.
Proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (IFP), William Lloyd Holtzclaw's Complaint for violations of the Eight Amendment and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was greenlit for service on prison staff. Docs. 9 & 11. He now seeks to amend his Complaint to add two fellow wheelchair-bound prisoners as plaintiffs, perhaps contemplating a class action of sorts. Doc. 12. The plain language of the Prison Reform Litigation Act (PLRA) requires that each prisoner proceeding in forma papueris (IFP) pay the full filing fee. In other words, in a multi-plaintiff action each individual prisoner plaintiff must pay to play or face dismissal. Hubbard v. Haley, 262 F.3d 1194, 1198 (11th Cir. 2001) ("the PLRA clearly and unambiguously requires that `if a prisoner brings a civil action or files an appeal [IFP], the prisoner shall be required to pay the full amount of the filing fee'")). This "modest monetary outlay" forces prisoners to "think twice about the case and not just file reflexively." Id. at 1198 (quoting 141 Cong. Rec. S7526 (daily ed. May 25, 1005) (statement of Sen. Kyl)).
As incarcerated prisoners, these additional potential plaintiffs must abide the PLRA's requirements by being solely responsible for their own filing fees, if they wish to proceed either in an individual action or together as co-plaintiffs1 in this action.2 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1); Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (requiring all prisoners, even those who are allowed to proceed in forma pauperis, to pay the full filing fee of $350.00). Because permitting these additional, potential plaintiffs to come into the case has such significant repercussions, the Court will give Holtzclaw, Perez, and Downer the opportunity, individually, to consider whether they wish to proceed. Should Downer and Perez decline to subject themselves to the requirements of PLRA to file their own complaints and pay their own filing fees, Holtzclaw may request to withdraw his motion to amend within 21 days of service of this Order. If no response is received within 21 days, the Court will assume that they do not wish to proceed, and will dismiss Holtzclaw's motion as moot. If, however, Perez and Downer wish to proceed, they must affirmatively state their intention and return the attached § 1983 Complaint forms and mandatory IFP forms.3
SO ORDERED.
