Goss v. Shepherd

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedFebruary 16, 2021
Docket2:21-cv-00234
StatusUnknown

This text of Goss v. Shepherd (Goss v. Shepherd) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Goss v. Shepherd, (D. Ariz. 2021).

Opinion

1 WO SC 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Kenneth James Myers, et al., No. CV 21-00212-PHX-JAT (CDB) 10 Plaintiffs, 11 v. ORDER 12 J. Adam Shepherd, et al., 13 Defendants.

14 15 Kenneth James Myers, and 40 other prisoners, who are apparently all confined in 16 the Gila County Jail in Globe, Arizona, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 17 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1). Plaintiff Myers also filed an incomplete Application to Proceed 18 In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2). The Court will dismiss this action and direct the Clerk of 19 Court to open a new separate action on behalf of each Plaintiff. 20 I. Severance of Action into Separate Actions 21 Generally, plaintiffs may join in one action if they assert any right to relief arising 22 out of the same occurrence or series of occurrences and if any question of law or fact in 23 common to all plaintiffs will arise in the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20. However, Rule 21 of 24 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes the Court to drop parties on just terms and 25 sever claims. See Desert Empire Bank v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 623 F.2d 1371, 1375 (9th Cir. 26 1980) (even if the specific requirements of Rule 20 may be satisfied, a trial court must 27 examine other relevant factors to determine if joinder of a party will comport with 28 principles of fundamental fairness). 1 Even if Plaintiffs in this action are properly joined, the Court has found that 2 management of pro se multi-plaintiff inmate litigation presents significant burdens to both 3 the parties and the Court. Plaintiffs are prisoners proceeding pro se, and, although each 4 Plaintiff may appear on his own behalf, no other Plaintiff may appear on behalf of another 5 Plaintiff. Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 877 (9th Cir. 1997). Therefore, 6 during the prosecution of this action, each Plaintiff would be required to sign and submit 7 his own motions and notices related to his claims in the action, and each Plaintiff would be 8 required to individually sign any motion or notice filed on behalf of all of the Plaintiffs. 9 However, because of security concerns related to prisoner correspondence and face-to-face 10 communications, Plaintiffs would have at best only a very limited opportunity to discuss 11 case strategy, share discovery, or even provide each other copies of the motions and notices 12 they file with the Court. Thus, continued administration of the lawsuit by the prisoners is 13 limited, if not virtually impossible, due to the regulation of prisoner-to-prisoner 14 correspondence. Moreover, prisoners are subject to transfer at any time to a facility other 15 than the one they are incarcerated in at the time of the lawsuit. 16 With these concerns in mind, the Court concludes that unitary adjudication of 17 Plaintiffs’ claims would result in unfairness to Plaintiffs, Defendants, and the Court’s goals 18 of achieving judicial economy and maintaining efficient control of the Court’s docket. 19 Allowing each Plaintiff to proceed separately, however, would overcome the unfairness 20 created by these circumstances. Therefore, the Court will sever this action into individual 21 cases and a new case number will be assigned to each individually named Plaintiff. A copy 22 of the Complaint and this Order will be placed in each new case. Further, as discussed 23 below, the Court will direct the Clerk of Court to send to each Plaintiff a copy of the court- 24 approved Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 25 II. Payment of Filing Fee 26 When bringing an action, a prisoner must either pay the $350.00 filing fee and a 27 $52.00 administrative fee in a lump sum or, if granted the privilege of proceeding in forma 28 pauperis, pay the $350.00 filing fee incrementally as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). 1 An application to proceed in forma pauperis requires an affidavit of indigence and a 2 certified copy of the inmate’s trust account statement for the six months preceding the filing 3 of the Complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). An inmate must submit statements from each 4 institution where he was confined during the six-month period. Id. To assist prisoners in 5 meeting these requirements, the Court requires use of a form application. LRCiv 3.4. 6 If a prisoner is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court will assess an 7 initial partial filing fee of 20% of either the average monthly deposits or the average 8 monthly balance in Plaintiff’s account, whichever is greater. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). An 9 initial partial filing fee will only be collected when funds exist. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4). 10 The balance of the $350.00 filing fee will be collected in monthly payments of 20% of the 11 preceding month’s income credited to an inmate’s account, each time the amount in the 12 account exceeds $10.00. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). 13 A. Plaintiff Myers’ Application Fails to Comply with Statute 14 Although Plaintiff Myers filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis using 15 the court-approved form, Plaintiff Myers has not submitted a certified six-month trust 16 account statement. In light of that deficiency, the Court will deny Plaintiff Myers’ 17 Application to Proceed and will give Plaintiff Myers 30 days to either pay the $402.00 18 filing and administrative fees or file a complete Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 19 B. Remaining Plaintiffs 20 The remaining Plaintiffs have neither paid the filing and administrative fees, nor 21 filed Applications to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Therefore, each of these Plaintiffs will 22 be permitted 30 days from the filing date of this Order to submit a properly executed and 23 certified Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, in his individual case, using the form 24 included with this Order, or pay the $402.00 filing and administrative fees. 25 III. Complaint 26 The Court has the inherent authority to sua sponte to require a party to replead, 27 pursuant to Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, when a “pleading is so 28 vague or ambiguous that [a] party cannot reasonably prepare a response.” See Wagner v. 1 First Horizon Pharm. Corp., 464 F.3d 1273, 1275 (11th Cir. 2006) (“We also remind 2 district courts of their supervisory obligation to sua sponte order repleading pursuant to 3 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e) when a shotgun complaint fails to link adequately a 4 cause of action to its factual predicates.”); Cobb v. Marshall, 481 F. Supp. 2d 1248, 1259 5 (M.D. Ala.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Fikes v. City of Daphne
79 F.3d 1079 (Eleventh Circuit, 1996)
Harry Wagner v. First Horizon Pharmaceutical Corp.
464 F.3d 1273 (Eleventh Circuit, 2006)
Rizzo v. Goode
423 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Cobb v. Marshall
481 F. Supp. 2d 1248 (M.D. Alabama, 2007)
Johns v. County of San Diego
114 F.3d 874 (Ninth Circuit, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Goss v. Shepherd, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goss-v-shepherd-azd-2021.