Vigil v. Wilkens, 1:24-cv-00522

Four inmates (Alejandro Vigil, Victor Montano, Jr., Isaiah Ulibarri, and Manuel Trujillo) jointly filed a prisoner civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging prison conditions and/or the classification system.
The filings sought to bring class action claims and were submitted pro se (without attorneys).
Some documents were inconsistently signed by all or only some plaintiffs, complicating the record.
At least one plaintiff (Vigil) ended communications with the court, adding to coordination difficulties.
No initial filing fees were paid, pending determination on whether a class action could proceed.
The court had to determine whether multiple inmates could permissibly join and prosecute the case together.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Permissive joinder of pro se inmates	Plaintiffs should be allowed to join via Rule 20 for similar claims	Impractical, violates policy	Joinder is impractical and disallowed
Pro se plaintiffs acting as class reps	Plaintiffs sought class treatment	Not permitted under law	Pro se litigants cannot represent a class
Handling misjoined cases	Collective filing maximizes efficiency for inmates	Multiple filers problematic	Each plaintiff must file an individual suit
In forma pauperis status	Plaintiffs seek to proceed without payment of fees	Fees deferred pending decision	Motions denied without prejudice

Hefley v. Textron, Inc., 713 F.2d 1487 (10th Cir. 1983) (permits joinder but leaves it to court discretion)
McGoldrick v. Werholtz, [citation="185 Fed. App'x 741"] (10th Cir. 2006) (class representatives may not appear pro se)