Firestine v. St. Clair County Jail
3:17-cv-00564
S.D. Ill.Jun 2, 2017Background
- Seven St. Clair County Jail inmates (including Anthony Firestine) filed a joint pro se § 1983 complaint alleging unconstitutional jail conditions and denial of a meaningful grievance process, seeking damages and injunctive relief.
- The seven plaintiffs submitted a single IFP motion without individual signed IFP forms or the required certified six‑month trust‑fund account statements for each inmate (required period: 11/30/2016–5/30/2017).
- The court designated Firestine as the lead plaintiff and warned that each co‑plaintiff must either file a proper individual IFP motion with a certified trust‑fund statement or pay the full $400 filing fee by July 5, 2017, or be dismissed (the fee obligation survives dismissal).
- The court explained administrative and substantive risks of multi‑plaintiff prisoner litigation (individual fee obligations, multiplied mailing costs, Rule 11 sanction exposure, potential severance and separate filing fees) and offered non‑lead plaintiffs an opportunity to withdraw from the group action.
- The court ordered that any future group filings must be signed by each plaintiff personally (per Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a)); noncompliant group filings will be stricken.
- The complaint remains subject to preliminary screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and has not yet been served; plaintiffs must keep the clerk informed of address changes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of IFP submission | Plaintiffs filed one joint IFP form for seven inmates | Court required separate signed IFP forms and certified trust statements for each inmate | Each plaintiff (except lead) must file individual IFP with certification or pay $400 by deadline or be dismissed |
| Personal fee liability in group prisoner suits | Plaintiffs proceeded jointly to pursue claims together | Court (citing Seventh Circuit) held each prisoner remains liable for full filing fee despite joint complaint | Court warned each plaintiff of individual fee obligation; offered withdrawal to avoid fee |
| Risks and management of group prisoner litigation | Plaintiffs sought to litigate jointly for efficiency | Court noted increased mailing/copying costs, Rule 11 sanction exposure, risk of severance leading to additional fees | Court warned plaintiffs of these risks and allowed non‑lead plaintiffs to withdraw or seek severance into individual cases |
| Signature and signing requirements for group filings | Plaintiffs filed some group documents signed by lead or collectively | Court requires each unrepresented plaintiff to sign filings personally under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a) | Court ordered future group filings must be signed by each plaintiff; noncompliant filings will be stricken |
Key Cases Cited
- Boriboune v. Berge, 391 F.3d 852 (7th Cir. 2004) (discusses management and fee obligations in multi‑prisoner suits and recommends advising prisoners of risks and allowing withdrawal)
- Lewis v. Lenc‑Smith Mfg. Co., 784 F.2d 829 (7th Cir. 1986) (unrepresented parties must personally sign filings under Rule 11)
- Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405 (4th Cir. 1975) (pro se prisoner cannot represent fellow inmates in class actions)
- Lucien v. Jockisch, 133 F.3d 464 (7th Cir. 1998) (a lead prisoner who files a group complaint remains liable for filing fees incurred at filing)