Crawford v. Sereal
3:20-cv-00075
| S.D.W. Va | Jan 30, 2020Background:
- Twenty prisoners at the Western Regional Jail filed a single § 1983 complaint alleging Eighth Amendment conditions in the special management unit (12–16 hour lockdowns, deprivation of recreation, education/rehab, and religious services) and sought prospective injunctive relief.
- Only Jason Howard Chinn signed the complaint and submitted an Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees; the other nineteen plaintiffs did not individually sign or file IFP applications.
- The court noted PLRA requirements (individual filing fees and three-strikes implications) and appellate/district authority, particularly Hubbard, as persuasive that multiple prisoner plaintiffs should not join in one in forma pauperis action.
- The complaint presented collective allegations but lacked individualized factual assertions for each plaintiff; the court found claims likely involved differing exposures, times, and defendant interactions requiring individualized development.
- The court concluded joinder was improper and that a pro se inmate cannot represent other inmates; it therefore ordered severance and individual preliminary review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
- The Clerk was ordered to: retain Chinn as the plaintiff in the original caption; open 19 new civil actions for the other plaintiffs; provide each new plaintiff with a § 1983 form complaint and IFP form; and require each plaintiff to file a signed individualized complaint and either pay the $400 filing fee or submit a completed IFP application within 20 days or face recommendation of dismissal.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Permissive joinder of multiple prisoner plaintiffs under PLRA | Prisoners jointly challenged common conditions and sought collective relief in one § 1983 action | PLRA requires each prisoner to pay separate filing fee and prevents circumvention of three-strikes; joinder improperly prorates fees | Joinder disallowed; plaintiffs severed into individual actions |
| Pro se prisoner signing/representing multiple plaintiffs | Chinn filed on behalf of all plaintiffs (implicit claim that joint filing permissible) | A pro se inmate may not represent other inmates or bind them in a class/collective pleading | Pro se cannot represent other prisoners; only Chinn remains in original case |
| Collective allegations vs. individualized claims | Plaintiffs described shared, generalized conditions | Claims likely involve differing facts/times/defendants and require individualized factual development | Complaint lacked specific allegations per plaintiff; severance and individual complaints required |
| Filing-fee/IFP compliance and consequences | Plaintiffs used joint filing to reduce costs/burden | PLRA obligations require each plaintiff to individually pay fee or file IFP; failure warrants dismissal | Each plaintiff must file his own complaint and pay $400 or file IFP within 20 days or risk dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Hubbard v. Haley, 262 F.3d 1194 (11th Cir. 2001) (PLRA filing-fee requirement bars multiple prisoners joining to pro-rate fee and avoid three-strikes)
- Hagan v. Rogers, 570 F.3d 146 (3d Cir. 2009) (more flexible approach to permissive joinder of prisoners; cited for contrast)
- Boriboune v. Berge, 391 F.3d 852 (7th Cir. 2004) (permissive-joinder analysis for prisoner plaintiffs)
- In re Prison Litigation Reform Act, 105 F.3d 1131 (6th Cir. 1997) (permissive-joinder considerations under PLRA; cited for circuit split context)
- Fowler v. Lee, 18 Fed. Appx. 164 (4th Cir. 2001) (pro se inmate may not represent other inmates; such representation is plain error)