Pippins v. McLaurin
3:17-cv-00699
S.D. Ill.Nov 8, 2017Background
- Five inmates at St. Clair County Jail filed a § 1983 civil-rights complaint on July 5, 2017: Cedric Cross, Larry Williams, Daniel Pippins, Courtney McNeal, and Christopher Furr.
- The Court issued a Boriboune notice designating Pippins as lead plaintiff, warned group-plaintiffs about obligations (including filing-fee liability), and gave non-lead plaintiffs a deadline to elect withdrawal or severance.
- Furr moved to withdraw and was dismissed; Cross filed an IFP motion but did not respond to the Boriboune Order; McNeal and Williams failed to respond at all.
- The Court dismissed Cross, McNeal, and Williams for failure to timely respond to the Boriboune Order and for failure to prosecute; Pippins remained as the sole plaintiff.
- The Court directed that all plaintiffs (except Furr) are liable for the filing fee incurred when the action was originally filed, and that Pippins was granted leave to file a First Amended Complaint limited to his claims by December 6, 2017, subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A screening.
- The Clerk was ordered to send Pippins a civil-rights complaint form and to modify the case caption to show Pippins as sole plaintiff against the named defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the group complaint may proceed as to all five plaintiffs without individual elections after Boriboune notice | Plaintiffs implicitly sought joint prosecution by signing the original complaint | Court administration requires an election under Boriboune; failure to elect means non-compliance | Only Pippins may proceed; Cross, McNeal, and Williams dismissed for failing to timely respond to Boriboune Order |
| Whether Pippins should be designated lead plaintiff | Pippins filed the IFP motion and trust-account statement first | Court applies Boriboune criteria (IFP filings) to select lead | Pippins properly designated lead plaintiff |
| Whether dismissed plaintiffs remain liable for the filing fee after dismissal | Plaintiffs asserted indigence in some IFP filings (e.g., Cross filed IFP) | Court held that filing-fee obligation attached when action was filed and survives dismissal, except for Furr who withdrew earlier | Except for Furr, plaintiffs remain obligated to pay the filing fee despite dismissal |
| Whether Pippins may file an amended complaint to narrow to his claims and effect screening under §1915A | Pippins seeks to proceed on his personal claims | Court requires single amended complaint that supersedes original and warns against piecemeal amendments | Court granted leave to file a First Amended Complaint limited to Pippins’ claims; warned it will be screened under §1915A and may be dismissed for noncompliance |
Key Cases Cited
- Boriboune v. Berge, 391 F.3d 852 (7th Cir. 2004) (procedure for handling multi‑plaintiff prisoner complaints and appointing lead plaintiff)
- Ladien v. Astrachan, 128 F.3d 1051 (7th Cir. 1997) (dismissal for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b) principles)
- Johnson v. Kamminga, 34 F.3d 466 (7th Cir. 1994) (standards for dismissal for failure to prosecute and compliance with court orders)
- Flannery v. Recording Indus. Ass’n of Am., 354 F.3d 632 (7th Cir. 2004) (an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint)