The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CODY H.A. HUTTON, #S11666, )
AARON HARDWICK, #K89869, and )
MICHAEL J. GILFORD, #K63568, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 22-cv-2683-SMY
)
ROB JEFFREYS, )
SARAH BROWN-FOILES, and )
HEATHER J. DeLASHMUTT, )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
YANDLE, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court sua sponte for case management. Plaintiffs Cody Hutton,
Aaron Hardwick, and Michael Gilford, currently being held at the Big Muddy River Correctional
Center, bring this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged constitutional
deprivations resulting from being indefinitely confined as civil detainees under the Illinois
Sexually Dangerous Persons Act (“SDPA”), 725 ILCS 205/1.01 et seq. (Doc. 1). Plaintiffs seek
injunctive relief. (Doc. 1, pp. 23-24).
Each of the Plaintiffs has signed the Complaint. (Doc. 1, p. 24). The Court deems it
necessary to address several preliminary matters before completing a merits review of the
Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
Group Litigation by Multiple Prisoners
Plaintiffs may bring their claims jointly in a single lawsuit if they so desire. However,
because not every litigant is likely to be aware of the potential negative consequences of joining
group litigation in federal courts, the Court must advise them of the consequences of proceeding
in this manner (including their filing fee obligations) and give them an opportunity to withdraw
from the case or sever their claims into individual actions. See Boriboune v. Berge, 391 F.3d 852,
856 (7th Cir. 2004).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 permits plaintiffs to join together in one lawsuit if they
assert claims “arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or
occurrences and if any question of law or fact common to these persons will arise in the action.”
That said, a district court may turn to other rules of civil procedure to manage a multi-plaintiff
case. For example, if appropriate, claims may be severed pursuant to Rule 20(b), pretrial orders
may be issued providing for a logical sequence of decision pursuant to Rule 16, parties improperly
joined may be dropped pursuant to Rule 21, and separate trials may be ordered pursuant to Rule
42(b). Boriboune, 391 F.3d at 854. Additionally, each prisoner in a joint action is required to pay
a full civil filing fee, just as if he had filed the suit individually. Id.
There are at least two other reasons a prisoner may wish to avoid group litigation. First,
group litigation creates countervailing costs. Each submission to the Court must be served on
every other plaintiff and the opposing parties pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5. This
means that if there are two plaintiffs, the plaintiffs’ postage and copying costs for filing motions,
briefs, or other papers will be twice as much as that of a single plaintiff.
Second, a prisoner litigating on his own behalf takes the risk that “one or more of his claims
may be deemed sanctionable under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.” Boriboune, 391 F.3d at
854-55. On the other hand, a prisoner litigating jointly assumes those risks for all of the claims in
the group Complaint, whether or not they concern him personally. Also, if the Court finds that the
Complaint contains unrelated claims against unrelated defendants, those unrelated claims may be
severed into one or more new cases, each of which involves an additional filing fee obligation and
the risk of a “strike” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiffs may wish to consider
Boriboune and the aforementioned factors in determining whether to assume the risks of group
litigation.
In keeping with Boriboune, the Court offers each Plaintiff an opportunity to withdraw from
this group litigation before the case progresses further. Each Plaintiff should consider the
following in making his decision:
• He will be held legally responsible for knowing precisely what is
being filed in the case on his behalf.
• He will be subject to sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 11 if such sanctions are found warranted in any aspect of
the case.
• If, at the time of filing, Plaintiff was a “prisoner” pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(h), he will incur a strike if the action is dismissed
as frivolous or malicious or for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted.1
• In screening the Complaint, the Court will consider whether
unrelated claims should be severed and, if it decides severance is
appropriate, he may be required to prosecute his claims in a separate
action and pay a separate filing fee for each new action.
• Whether the action is dismissed, severed, or allowed to proceed as a
group Complaint, he will be required to pay a full filing fee, either
in installments or in full, depending on whether he qualifies for
indigent status under §§ 1915(b) or (g).2
Should Plaintiffs desire to continue this litigation as a group, any proposed amended
complaint, motion, or other document filed on behalf of multiple plaintiffs must be signed by each
plaintiff. A non-attorney cannot file or sign papers for another litigant. Thus, as long as Plaintiffs
1 Civilly committed sex offenders in Illinois under the SDPA are “prisoners” subject to the Prison Litigation
Reform Act (“PLRA”). Kalinowski v. Bond, 358 F.3d 978, 978-79 (7th Cir. 2004).
2 The filing fee for a civil case has increased to $402.00, by the addition of a $52.00 administrative fee for
filing a civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court. See Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees -
District Court Miscellaneous Fee Schedule, 28 U.S.C. § 1914, No. 14. A litigant who is granted IFP status,
however, is exempt from paying the $52.00 fee and must pay a total fee of $350.00.
appear without counsel in this case, each Plaintiff must sign documents for himself. See Lewis v.
Lenc-Smith Mfg. Co., 784 F.2d 829, 831 (7th Cir. 1986); FED. R. CIV. P. 11. Plaintiffs are
WARNED that group motions or pleadings that do not comply with this requirement shall be
stricken pursuant to Rule 11(a).
Disposition
Each named Plaintiff is ORDERED to advise the Court in writing on or before February
22, 2023, whether he wishes to continue as a Plaintiff in this group action. If any Plaintiff wants
to pursue his claims individually in a separate lawsuit, he shall so advise the Court in writing on
or before February 22, 2023 and his claims will be severed into a new action. Any amount of the
filing fee already collected by such Plaintiff for this case will be applied toward the severed case;
he will be charged only one filing fee. Any Plaintiff who does not respond to this Order on or
before February 22, 2023 will be obligated to pay the full filing fee and will also be dismissed
from this action for want of prosecution and/or for failure to comply with a court order
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
Plaintiffs are ADVISED that the Complaint is currently pending preliminary review by the
Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and has not yet been served on the Defendants. The above-
ordered actions by Plaintiffs are required before the Court can complete its preliminary review.
When this review is completed, a copy of the Court’s screening order will be forwarded to each
Plaintiff who remains in the action.
Plaintiffs are further ADVISED that each of them is under a continuing obligation to keep
the Clerk of Court and each opposing party informed of any change in his address; the Court will
not independently investigate a Plaintiff’s whereabouts. This shall be done in writing and not later
than 7 days after a transfer or other change in address occurs. Failure to comply with this Order
will cause a delay in the transmission of court documents and may result in dismissal of this action
for want of prosecution. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send a copy of this Order to each Plaintiff.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: January 23, 2023
s/ Staci M. Yandle
STACI M. YANDLE
United States District Judge