Perez v. Federal Correctional Institute Pollock Medium
1:22-cv-01750
W.D. La.Jun 15, 2022Background
- Pro se plaintiff Jorge Alonzo filed for injunctive relief seeking to lift commissary restrictions at FCI–Pollock; 73 other inmates are listed as co‑plaintiffs.
- Western District of Louisiana Local Rule 3.2 requires each pro se prisoner to file a separate complaint alleging civil‑rights violations.
- The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) requires a prisoner who brings a civil action to pay the full filing fee, preventing cost‑sharing through joint filings.
- The Court found that multi‑party prisoner filings can improperly circumvent the PLRA and its fee requirements and that joint pleadings raise practical management problems.
- Citing precedent on the PLRA’s deterrent purpose and the impracticalities of joint prisoner suits, the magistrate judge ordered severance of the putative plaintiffs.
- The Clerk was directed to open a new proceeding for each putative plaintiff and to mail each an application to proceed in forma pauperis and a Bivens complaint form. The order is signed June 15, 2022.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May multiple pro se prisoners proceed in a single complaint to challenge prison conditions and share one filing fee? | Alonzo proceeded collectively with co‑signatories to challenge commissary restrictions. | PLRA and Local Rule 3.2 require each prisoner to file separately and pay the full filing fee; multi‑party suits evade statutory fees. | Court severed the putative plaintiffs; each must file separately and pay the fee or apply for IFP. |
| Does Local Rule 3.2 and the PLRA justify severing jointly filed prisoner claims? | Joint filing is permissible to pursue common relief. | Local Rule 3.2 and PLRA prohibit joint filings that would dilute individual filing‑fee obligations. | Court enforced Local Rule 3.2 and PLRA, ordering severance and separate proceedings. |
| Are joint prosecutions by multiple inmate signatories practically manageable? | Joint prosecution is more efficient and cohesive for identical claims. | Joint prosecution creates impracticalities and difficulties in managing claims and fees. | Court found joint management impractical and severed the matters, directing clerk to open individual cases and provide forms. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (recognized implied private cause of action against federal officials for constitutional violations)
- Patton v. Jefferson Correctional Ctr., 136 F.3d 458 (5th Cir. 1998) (PLRA enacted to deter frivolous prisoner litigation through filing‑fee requirements)
- Jackson v. Stinnett, 102 F.3d 132 (5th Cir. 1996) (discusses the deterrent purpose of the PLRA fee provisions)