Richardson v. Wilcher

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA SAVANNAH DIVISION

RODRICK L. RICHARDSON,

Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO.: 4:22-cv-181

v.

SHERIFF JOHN T. WILCHER, et al.,

Defendants.

O RDER Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s August 1, 2022, Report and Recommendation recommending that the individuals identified as additional plaintiffs by pro se plaintiff Rodrick L. Richardson be dismissed. (Doc. 5.) Richardson objects, confirming his intent that this case be brought on behalf of a class of plaintiffs, and “noting that one person, or a small group of people, can sue on behalf of all other people who happen to be in the same situation(s).” (Doc. 13, pp. 1- 2.) Richardson proceeds to argue that the proposed class meets the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. (Id., pp. 1-4.)1 Notably, none of the other purported plaintiffs have filed an objection to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that they be dismissed. (See generally docket.) The Report and Recommendation explained that the law in the Eleventh Circuit expressly prohibits prisoners seeking to proceed in forma pauperis from joining together as plaintiffs in a single lawsuit. (Doc. 5, p. 2 (citing Hubbard v. Haley, 262 F.3d 1194, 1197-98 (11th Cir. 2001)).) Additionally, Plaintiff cannot initiate or maintain a class action as a pro se litigant. As the

1 Richardson’s objection also references his request for the appointment of counsel. (Doc. 13, p. 5.) His Motion for Appointment of Counsel remains pending before the Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 14.) Eleventh Circuit has explained, “It is plain error to permit an imprisoned litigant who is unassisted by counsel to represent his fellow inmates in a class action.” Wallace v. Smith, 145 F. App'x. 300, 302 (11th Cir. 2005) (quoting Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975) and citing Massimo v. Henderson, 468 F.2d 1209, 1210 (Sth Cir. 1972) (internal quotes and alterations omitted)). Therefore, after careful de novo review, the Court OVERRULES Richardson’s objection and ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, (doc. 5), as its opinion. All Plaintiffs, other than Rodrick L. Richardson, are DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to update the docket accordingly. SO ORDERED, this 22nd day of August, 2022. f S ee Lye R.STANBAKER s—‘i—sCS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA