Deanthony A. Jackson, et al. v. Stephen Whyte, et al.

• Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
• Decided: January 14, 2026
• Docket: 8:25-cv-03537
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

DEANTHONY A. JACKSON, et al., Plaintiffs,

v. Case No. 8:25-cv-3537-KKM-CPT

STEPHEN WHYTE, et al., Defendants. ___________________________ ORDER Jackson and three other pretrial detainees in the Manatee County Jail initiated this action by jointly filing a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiffs also move for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, (Doc. 2), and for class action status, (Doc. 3). The four Plaintiffs name as Defendants two assistant public defenders, a private attorney, and the judges of the 12th Judicial Circuit Court. They assert unrelated complaints about their state criminal prosecutions. The Complaint must be dismissed. Plaintiffs may not join together in a single civil rights suit to share the filing fee. In considering whether the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) allows multi-plaintiff, in forma pauperis, civil actions, the Eleventh Circuit has concluded that “the plain language of the PLRA requires that each prisoner proceeding IFP pay the full filing fee[.]” Hubbard v. Haley, 262 F.3d 1194, 1198 (11th Cir. 2001). Further, it would be error to allow Plaintiffs, who are pro se pretrial detainees, to proceed jointly. See Wallace v. Smith, 145 F. App’x 300, 302 (11th Cir. 2005) (“[I]t is plain error to permit [an] imprisoned litigant who is unassisted by counsel to represent his fellow inmates in a class action.” (quoting Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975)); see also Johnson v. Brown, 581 F. App’x 777, 781 (11th Cir. 2014) (stating that a pro se prisoner litigant cannot bring an action on behalf of other prisoners); Bass v. Benton, 408 F. App’x 298, 299 (11th Cir. 2011) (stating plaintiff, a pro se prisoner, could not seek relief on behalf of fellow inmates nor represent them in class action suit). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Complaint, (Doc. 1), is DISMISSED without prejudice to each Plaintiff filing a new complaint in a

new case under a new case number, solely on his own behalf. The motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, (Doc. 2), and for class action status, (Doc. 3), are DENIED as moot. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case. ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on January 14, 2026.

athryn’ Kimball Mizelle United States District Judge