Murray v. Wilken, 1:24-cv-00412

Two inmate-plaintiffs, Christopher E. Murray and Derrick J. Castillo, filed a joint pro se prisoner civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, challenging conditions of confinement and the prison classification system.
The complaint was styled as a class action, with both inmates seeking to proceed jointly and represent a class.
The pleadings were inconsistently signed; some documents bore both plaintiffs’ signatures, others just one, creating uncertainty around claims and requests for relief.
Neither plaintiff paid a filing fee, as the Court initially deferred fee collection pending a decision on joinder/class action issues.
The key procedural posture was the Court's initial review to decide whether it is permissible or feasible for multiple, pro se inmate-plaintiffs to join claims or proceed as a class.
The Court noted there was no clear primary filer among the two plaintiffs, and the statute of limitations did not bar any claims if the case were dismissed and refiled separately.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Propriety of multiple pro se inmates joining in one suit	Murray/Castillo: Wish to proceed jointly, as a class, on overlapping claims	Not stated	Court denied permissive joinder due to practical concerns
Pro se inmates serving as class representatives	Murray/Castillo: Sought to litigate as a class	Not stated	Court found pro se inmates cannot represent a class
Effect of improper joinder/class action on claims	Murray/Castillo: All claims should proceed	Not stated	All claims dismissed without prejudice; must file separately
Impact on pending motions	Murray/Castillo: Sought relief via motions	Not stated	All pending motions denied without prejudice

Hefley v. Textron, Inc., 713 F.2d 1487 (10th Cir. 1983) (permissive joinder under Rule 20 is discretionary)
McGoldrick v. Werholtz, [citation="185 Fed. App'x 741"] (10th Cir. 2006) (pro se litigants cannot represent a class)
Fymbo v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 213 F.3d 1320 (10th Cir. 2000) (pro se plaintiffs cannot represent a class action)