Opinion

Brown v. Giether

Court
District Court, D. Nevada
Filed
Mar 21, 2024
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 26.4%

The opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

TRACEY L. BROWN, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-01182-RFB-DJA

4

Plaintiffs, ORDER

5 v.

6 GIETHER, et al.,

7 Defendants.

8

9 This action began with a pro se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

10 1983 by Plaintiffs Tracey L. Brown and Tony O. Brown, who are both state prisoners.

11 Each Plaintiff has submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 6,

12 12). Based on the financial information provided, the Court finds that neither Plaintiff can

13 prepay the full filing fee in this matter, and the Court grants each Plaintiff’s motion to

14 proceed in forma pauperis. Each Plaintiff will be required to pay his own $350 filing fee

15 when he has funds available.1

16

1 The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) directs that “if a prisoner brings a civil action

17 or files an appeal in forma pauperis, the prisoner shall be required to pay the full amount

of a filing fee.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). The Eleventh Circuit held in Hubbard v. Haley that

18 this language plainly requires “each prisoner proceeding [in forma pauperis] to pay the

full filing fee” in a multi-plaintiff action, and to the extent that Federal Rule of Civil

19

Procedure 20 conflicts with the PLRA, “the statute repeals the Rule.” 262 F.3d 1194,

20 1197–98 (11th Cir. 2001). The Eleventh Circuit thus affirmed the district court’s decision

dismissing the action, finding that each plaintiff was required to file a separate complaint

21 and pay a separate filing fee. Id. at 1198.

The Seventh Circuit took a different approach in Boriboune v. Berge, concluding

22 that the PLRA neither repealed nor modified Rule 20, it found that Hubbard got one point

right: “one price of forma pauperis status is each prisoner’s responsibility to pay the full

23

fee in installments (or in advance, if § 1915(g) applies), no matter how many other

24 plaintiffs join the complaint.” 391 F.3d 852, 855–56 (7th Cir. 2004). The Seventh Circuit

concluded that, “[i]nstead of adopting a no-joinder rule, the district court should have

25 ensured that each of the four prisoners was assessed one full filing fee under §

1915(b)(1).” Id. at 856. In Hagan v. Rogers, the Third Circuit followed the Seventh Circuit’s

26 approach. 570 F.3d 146, 154–56 (3d Cir. 2009).

The Ninth Circuit has not yet addressed this issue, but jurists in this district have

27

followed the Seventh Circuit’s approach in Boriboune, permitting prisoners to join their

28 claims in a single action if Rule 20’s requirements are met but requiring each plaintiff to

1 The Court entered a screening order on March 31, 2023. (ECF No. 26). The

2 screening order imposed a stay, and the Court entered a subsequent order in which the

3 parties were assigned to mediation by a court-appointed mediator. (ECF Nos. 26, 31).

4 The parties have participated in a mediation session, but they did not reach a settlement.

5 (ECF No. 46).

6 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that:

7 1. Plaintiff Tracey L. Brown’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF

8 No. 12) is GRANTED. Tracey Brown shall not be required to pay an initial installment of

9 the filing fee. In the event that this action is dismissed, the full filing fee must still be paid

10 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

11 2. Tracey Brown is permitted to maintain this action to conclusion without the

12 necessity of prepayment of any additional fees or costs or the giving of security therefor.

13 3. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, as amended by the Prison Litigation Reform

14 Act, the Nevada Department of Corrections will forward payments from the account of

15 Tracey L. Brown, #67358 to the Clerk of the United States District Court, District of

16 Nevada, 20% of the preceding month's deposits (in months that the account exceeds

17 $10.00) until the full $350 filing fee has been paid for this action. The Clerk of the Court

18 will send a copy of this order to the Finance Division of the Clerk’s Office. The Clerk will

19 send a copy of this order to the attention of Chief of Inmate Services for the Nevada

20 Department of Corrections at formapauperis@doc.nv.gov.

21 4. Plaintiff Tony O. Brown’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No.

22 6) is GRANTED. Tony Brown shall not be required to pay an initial installment of the filing

23 fee. In the event that this action is dismissed, the full filing fee must still be paid pursuant

24 to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

25 ///

26 pay his or her own filing fee. See, e.g., Lyons v. Baca, Case No. 3:15-cv-00126-MMD-

VPC, 2016 WL 845312, at *3–4 (D. Nev. Mar. 1, 2016); Meadows v. Lombardo, Case No.

27

2:23-cv-00755-RFB-MDC (ECF No. 7 at 2-4). The Court will follow Boriboune’s approach

28 and allow the Plaintiffs to proceed together but require each Plaintiff to pay his own filing

1 5. Tony Brown is permitted to maintain this action to conclusion without the

2 necessity of prepayment of any additional fees or costs or the giving of security therefor.

3 6. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, as amended by the Prison Litigation Reform

4 Act, the Nevada Department of Corrections will forward payments from the account of

5 Tony O. Brown, #69493 to the Clerk of the United States District Court, District of

6 Nevada, 20% of the preceding month's deposits (in months that the account exceeds

7 $10.00) until the full $350 filing fee has been paid for this action. The Clerk of the Court

8 will send a copy of this order to the Finance Division of the Clerk’s Office. The Clerk will

9 send a copy of this order to the attention of Chief of Inmate Services for the Nevada

10 Department of Corrections at formapauperis@doc.nv.gov.

11 7. The Clerk of the Court shall electronically SERVE a copy of this order and

12 a copy of Plaintiffs’ complaint (ECF No. 27) on the Office of the Attorney General of the

13 State of Nevada by adding the Attorney General of the State of Nevada to the docket

14 sheet. This does not indicate acceptance of service.

15 8. Service must be perfected within ninety (90) days from the date of this order

16 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

17 9. Subject to the findings of the screening order (ECF No. 26), within twenty-

18 one (21) days of the date of entry of this order, the Attorney General’s Office shall file a

19 notice advising the Court and Plaintiffs of: (a) the names of the defendants for whom it

20 accepts service; (b) the names of the defendants for whom it does not accept service,

21 and (c) the names of the defendants for whom it is filing the last-known-address

22 information under seal. As to any of the named defendants for whom the Attorney

23 General’s Office cannot accept service, the Office shall file, under seal, but shall not serve

24 the inmate Plaintiff the last known address(es) of those defendant(s) for whom it has such

25 information. If the last known address of the defendant(s) is a post office box, the Attorney

26 General's Office shall attempt to obtain and provide the last known physical address(es).

27 10. If service cannot be accepted for any of the named defendant(s), Plaintiffs

28 shall file a motion identifying the unserved defendant(s), requesting issuance of a

4|| summons, and specifying a full name and address for the defendant(s). For the

2\| defendant(s) as to which the Attorney General has not provided last-known-address

information, Plaintiffs shall provide the full name and address for the defendant(s).

4 11. If the Attorney General accepts service of process for any named

5|| defendant(s), such defendant(s) shall file and serve an answer or other response to the

complaint (ECF No. 27) within sixty (60) days from the date of this order.

7 12. Plaintiffs shall serve upon defendant(s) or, if an appearance has been

entered by counsel, upon their attorney(s), a copy of every pleading, motion or other

g|} document submitted for consideration by the Court. If Plaintiffs electronically file a

document with the Court’s electronic-filing system, no certificate of service is required.

11|| Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d)(1)(B); Nev. Loc. R. IC 4-1(b); Nev. Loc. R. 5-1. However, if Plaintiffs

mail the document to the Court, Plaintiffs shall include with the original document

43|| submitted for filing a certificate stating the date that a true and correct copy of the

44|| document was mailed to the defendants or counsel for the defendants. If counsel has

15|| entered a notice of appearance, Plaintiffs shall direct service to the individual attorney

named in the notice of appearance, at the physical or electronic address stated therein.

|| The Court may disregard any document received by a district judge or magistrate judge

48|| which has not been filed with the Clerk, and any document received by a district judge,

49|| magistrate judge, or the Clerk which fails to include a certificate showing proper service

20|| when required.

21 13. This case is no longer stayed.

22

33 DATED this 20" day of March ™ QOD

35 UNITED STATES MASISTRATE JUDGE

26

27

28

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.