UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE
DAVID A. SOLIS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 3:24-CV-356-KAC-DCP ) ROBERT L. HEADRICK, CLARK ) SMITH, and KEITH GREGORY, ) ) Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM & ORDER In accordance with the United States Magistrate Judge Debra C. Poplin’s previous order [Doc. 6], Plaintiff, a former Blount County Detention Center inmate now housed in the Tennessee Department of Correction, filed an amended pro se complaint for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging various claims, some of which are unrelated and against different Defendants [See Doc. 7]. However, the amended complaint is unsigned and contains claims that are not properly joined herein [Id. at 1-4]. Plaintiff also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. 4], his inmate trust account statement [Doc. 5], and various other documents seeking assistance from the Court [See Docs. 10, 11, 12, 13]. I. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), a prisoner bringing a civil action may apply for permission to file suit without prepaying the filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Because it appears from his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. 4] and trust account statement [Doc. 5] that Plaintiff cannot pay the filing fee in a lump sum, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. 4]. The Court ASSESSES Plaintiff the civil filing fee of three hundred fifty dollars ($350.00). The custodian of Plaintiff’s inmate trust account SHALL submit to the Clerk, U.S. District Court, 800 Market Street, Suite 130, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902, twenty percent (20%) of Plaintiff’s preceding monthly income (or income credited to Plaintiff’s trust account for the preceding month), but only when that income exceeds ten dollars ($10.00), until the full filing fee of three
hundred fifty dollars ($350.00) as authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) has been paid to the Clerk. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Memorandum & Order to the Court’s financial deputy and the custodian of inmate trust accounts at Plaintiff’s current facility to ensure compliance with the PLRA’s requirements for payment of the filing fee. II. AMENDED COMPLAINT As the Court noted above, Plaintiff did not sign his amended complaint [Doc. 7]. Thus, Plaintiff has not satisfied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a), which requires that a party not represented by counsel personally sign every pleading, written motion, or other paper filed in the court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. Additionally, it appears that at least some of the claims that Plaintiff seeks to bring in his
amended complaint are not properly joined herein under Rule 20(a)(2) because they arise out of unrelated incidents and are against different Defendants. Specifically, while a plaintiff may join as many claims as he has against an opposing party under Rule 18(a), Rule 20(a)(2) allows a plaintiff to sue multiple defendants only where “(A) any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and (B) any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). Thus, Rule 20 does not permit plaintiffs to join unrelated claims against different defendants in one lawsuit. See, e.g., George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (“A buckshot complaint that would be rejected if filed by a free person—say, a suit complaining that A defrauded the plaintiff, B defamed him, C punched him, D failed to pay a debt, and E infringed his copyright, all in different transactions— should be rejected if filed by a prisoner.”); Smith v. Lavender, No. 2:22-CV-1875, 2022 WL 4121929, at *6 (S.D. Ohio, Sept. 9, 2022) (severing unrelated claims a prisoner plaintiff filed in
the same complaint against different defendants) (citations omitted); White v. Newcomb, No. 2:21- CV-249, 2022 WL 2763305, at *4–5 (W.D. Mich. July 15, 2022) (providing that a plaintiff cannot join claims against multiple defendants in one lawsuit “‘unless one claim against each additional defendant is transactionally related to the claim against the first defendant and involves a common question of law or fact’” (quoting Proctor v Applegate, 661 F. Supp. 2d 743, 778 (E.D. Mich. 2009) and collecting cases standing for the proposition that prisoners cannot join unrelated claims against different defendants in a single lawsuit)). Accordingly, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send Plaintiff a Section 1983 complaint form. Within fifteen (15) days of the date of entry of this order, Plaintiff MUST file a single
second amended complaint with a short and plain statement of facts setting forth (1) each alleged violation of his constitutional rights and (2) the individual(s) responsible for each alleged violation. See LaFountain v. Harry, 716 F.3d 944, 951 (6th Cir. 2013) (holding that “[u]nder Rule 15(a) a district court can allow a plaintiff to amend his complaint . . . .”). However, Plaintiff is NOTIFIED that if he includes claims that are not properly joined under Rule 20(a)(2) and Rule 18(a) in any second amended complaint he files, the Court will presume that he intends to proceed as to his first listed claim, and the Court will DISMISS any other misjoined claims. III. ASSISTANCE, COPIES, DISCOVERY, AND SERVICE Plaintiff also filed documents in which he asks the Court how to seek appointment of counsel and makes other requests for legal advice, requests copies of “everything” he has filed, and states his intention (1) to ask Defendants for discovery and (2) that he will need help serving Defendants [Docs. 10 at 1-2, 11, 12, 13]. The Court will address these issues in turn.
A. Assistance with Counsel And Other Legal Advice First, the Court cannot provide Plaintiff legal advice. This is especially true when it comes to seeking representation from counsel. Appointment of counsel in a civil proceeding is not a constitutional right, but a privilege justified only in exceptional circumstances. See Lavado v. Keohane, 992 F. 2d 601, 605‒06 (6th Cir. 1993). B. Copies Second, Plaintiff requests copies of “everything” he has filed in this case [Doc. 10]. However, Plaintiff must pay for those copies. See, e.g., Hammock v. Rogers, No. 1:17-CV-1939, 2019 WL 651602, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 15, 2019) (noting indigent prisoners must bear own
litigation expenses). Accordingly, this request is DENIED. But the Court DIRECT the Clerk to send Plaintiff a copy request form. C. Discovery and Service Third, until Plaintiff has filed any second amended complaint and the Court has screened the operative complaint as required under the PLRA, Plaintiff cannot begin discovery. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE
DAVID A. SOLIS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 3:24-CV-356-KAC-DCP ) ROBERT L. HEADRICK, CLARK ) SMITH, and KEITH GREGORY, ) ) Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM & ORDER In accordance with the United States Magistrate Judge Debra C. Poplin’s previous order [Doc. 6], Plaintiff, a former Blount County Detention Center inmate now housed in the Tennessee Department of Correction, filed an amended pro se complaint for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging various claims, some of which are unrelated and against different Defendants [See Doc. 7]. However, the amended complaint is unsigned and contains claims that are not properly joined herein [Id. at 1-4]. Plaintiff also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. 4], his inmate trust account statement [Doc. 5], and various other documents seeking assistance from the Court [See Docs. 10, 11, 12, 13]. I. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), a prisoner bringing a civil action may apply for permission to file suit without prepaying the filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Because it appears from his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. 4] and trust account statement [Doc. 5] that Plaintiff cannot pay the filing fee in a lump sum, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. 4]. The Court ASSESSES Plaintiff the civil filing fee of three hundred fifty dollars ($350.00). The custodian of Plaintiff’s inmate trust account SHALL submit to the Clerk, U.S. District Court, 800 Market Street, Suite 130, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902, twenty percent (20%) of Plaintiff’s preceding monthly income (or income credited to Plaintiff’s trust account for the preceding month), but only when that income exceeds ten dollars ($10.00), until the full filing fee of three
hundred fifty dollars ($350.00) as authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) has been paid to the Clerk. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Memorandum & Order to the Court’s financial deputy and the custodian of inmate trust accounts at Plaintiff’s current facility to ensure compliance with the PLRA’s requirements for payment of the filing fee. II. AMENDED COMPLAINT As the Court noted above, Plaintiff did not sign his amended complaint [Doc. 7]. Thus, Plaintiff has not satisfied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a), which requires that a party not represented by counsel personally sign every pleading, written motion, or other paper filed in the court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. Additionally, it appears that at least some of the claims that Plaintiff seeks to bring in his
amended complaint are not properly joined herein under Rule 20(a)(2) because they arise out of unrelated incidents and are against different Defendants. Specifically, while a plaintiff may join as many claims as he has against an opposing party under Rule 18(a), Rule 20(a)(2) allows a plaintiff to sue multiple defendants only where “(A) any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and (B) any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). Thus, Rule 20 does not permit plaintiffs to join unrelated claims against different defendants in one lawsuit. See, e.g., George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (“A buckshot complaint that would be rejected if filed by a free person—say, a suit complaining that A defrauded the plaintiff, B defamed him, C punched him, D failed to pay a debt, and E infringed his copyright, all in different transactions— should be rejected if filed by a prisoner.”); Smith v. Lavender, No. 2:22-CV-1875, 2022 WL 4121929, at *6 (S.D. Ohio, Sept. 9, 2022) (severing unrelated claims a prisoner plaintiff filed in
the same complaint against different defendants) (citations omitted); White v. Newcomb, No. 2:21- CV-249, 2022 WL 2763305, at *4–5 (W.D. Mich. July 15, 2022) (providing that a plaintiff cannot join claims against multiple defendants in one lawsuit “‘unless one claim against each additional defendant is transactionally related to the claim against the first defendant and involves a common question of law or fact’” (quoting Proctor v Applegate, 661 F. Supp. 2d 743, 778 (E.D. Mich. 2009) and collecting cases standing for the proposition that prisoners cannot join unrelated claims against different defendants in a single lawsuit)). Accordingly, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send Plaintiff a Section 1983 complaint form. Within fifteen (15) days of the date of entry of this order, Plaintiff MUST file a single
second amended complaint with a short and plain statement of facts setting forth (1) each alleged violation of his constitutional rights and (2) the individual(s) responsible for each alleged violation. See LaFountain v. Harry, 716 F.3d 944, 951 (6th Cir. 2013) (holding that “[u]nder Rule 15(a) a district court can allow a plaintiff to amend his complaint . . . .”). However, Plaintiff is NOTIFIED that if he includes claims that are not properly joined under Rule 20(a)(2) and Rule 18(a) in any second amended complaint he files, the Court will presume that he intends to proceed as to his first listed claim, and the Court will DISMISS any other misjoined claims. III. ASSISTANCE, COPIES, DISCOVERY, AND SERVICE Plaintiff also filed documents in which he asks the Court how to seek appointment of counsel and makes other requests for legal advice, requests copies of “everything” he has filed, and states his intention (1) to ask Defendants for discovery and (2) that he will need help serving Defendants [Docs. 10 at 1-2, 11, 12, 13]. The Court will address these issues in turn.
A. Assistance with Counsel And Other Legal Advice First, the Court cannot provide Plaintiff legal advice. This is especially true when it comes to seeking representation from counsel. Appointment of counsel in a civil proceeding is not a constitutional right, but a privilege justified only in exceptional circumstances. See Lavado v. Keohane, 992 F. 2d 601, 605‒06 (6th Cir. 1993). B. Copies Second, Plaintiff requests copies of “everything” he has filed in this case [Doc. 10]. However, Plaintiff must pay for those copies. See, e.g., Hammock v. Rogers, No. 1:17-CV-1939, 2019 WL 651602, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 15, 2019) (noting indigent prisoners must bear own
litigation expenses). Accordingly, this request is DENIED. But the Court DIRECT the Clerk to send Plaintiff a copy request form. C. Discovery and Service Third, until Plaintiff has filed any second amended complaint and the Court has screened the operative complaint as required under the PLRA, Plaintiff cannot begin discovery. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Accordingly, to the extent Plaintiff seeks any relief from the Court based on statements regarding discovery and service, the Court DENIES that request as premature. IV. CONCLUSION Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above: 1. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. 4];
2. Plaintiff is ASSESSED the $350 filing fee;
3. The custodian of Plaintiff’s inmate account is DIRECTED to submit payments toward the filing fee in the manner set forth above;
4. The Clerk is DIRECTED to provide a copy of this Memorandum & Order to the Court’s financial deputy and the custodian of Plaintiff’s inmate account;
5. The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion [Doc. 10];
6. The Clerk SHALL send Plaintiff a copy request form, if she has not already done so;
7. Plaintiff shall have fifteen (15) days from the date of entry of this order to file a second amended complaint in the manner set forth above;
8. Plaintiff is NOTIFIED that any second amended complaint he files will completely replace his previous complaint filings;
9. Plaintiff is also NOTIFIED that if he fails to fully and timely comply with this order, the Court shall order the case dismissed for want of prosecution without further notice;
10. Plaintiff is NOTIFIED that if he includes claims that are not properly joined under Rule 20(a)(2) and Rule 18(a) in any second amended complaint he files, the Court will presume that he intends to proceed as to his first listed claim, and the Court will DISMISS any other misjoined claims without prejudice; and
11. Plaintiff is ORDERED to immediately inform the Court and Defendants, or their counsel of record, of any address changes in writing. Pursuant to Local Rule 83.13, it is the duty of a pro se party to promptly notify the Clerk and the other parties to the proceedings of any change in his or her address, to monitor the progress of the case, and to prosecute or defend the action diligently. E.D. Tenn. L.R. 83.13. Failure to provide a correct address to this Court within fourteen days of any change in address will result in the dismissal of this action. SO ORDERED.
ENTER:
/s/ Katherine A. Crytzer KATHERINE A. CRYTZER United States District Judge