“A prisoner cannot bring claims on behalf of other prisoners.”
How later courts described this case
- “A prisoner cannot bring claims on behalf of other prisoners.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
ANTHONY L. MCKINNEY,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action 2:20-cv-01450
Judge Michael H. Watson
v. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers
DENISE PADDOCK, et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File
an Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 31.) Defendants have filed a Response. (ECF No. 32.)
Plaintiff has not filed a Reply. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED.
I.
Plaintiff, a state inmate currently incarcerated in the Ross Correctional Institution
(“RCI”), is proceeding here pro se and in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1, 3.) Plaintiff’s original
Complaint, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, totals 102 pages comprised of 44 hand-written
pages and numerous exhibits, and names as defendants six employees of either the London
Correctional Institution (“LOCI”) or RCI, as well as “hearing officers unknown.” (ECF No. 4.)
Plaintiff has moved for leave to file an Amended Complaint seeking to add a co-plaintiff, Inmate
Brent R. Houdeshell, and to seek damages on Mr. Houdeshell’s behalf. (ECF No. 31 at 2 & 43).
II.
Generally, pursuant to Rule 15(a), the Court should freely grant a party leave to amend
his or her pleadings when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Rule 15(a) sets forth “a
liberal policy of permitting amendments to ensure the determination of claims on their merits.”
Oleson v. United States, 27 Fed. Appx. 566, 569 (6th Cir. 2001) (internal quotations omitted). As
the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has noted, “[f]actors that may affect [a
Rule 15(a)] determination include undue delay in filing, lack of notice to the opposing party, bad
faith by the moving party, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by previous amendment, undue
prejudice to the opposing party, and futility of the amendment.” Seals v. Gen. Motors Corp., 546
F.3d 766, 770 (6th Cir. 2008). A court may deny a motion for leave to amend for futility if the
amendment could not withstand a motion to dismiss. Riverview Health Inst. LLC v. Med. Mut. of
Ohio, 601 F.3d 505, 512 (6th Cir. 2010); Midkiff v. Adams Cnty. Reg'l Water Dist., 409 F.3d 758,
767 (6th Cir. 2005). In addition, when considering the issue of prejudice, a court must ask
whether allowing amendment would “require the opponent to expend significant additional
resources to conduct discovery or prepare for trial” or cause considerable delay in resolving the
dispute. Phelps v. McClennan, 30 F.3d 658, 662–63 (6th Cir. 1994).
As discussed in the prior order authorizing service (ECF No. 5), the Prison Litigation
Reform Act authorizes sua sponte review of any complaint in which a prisoner seeks to proceed
in forma pauperis to determine whether the complaint, or any portion of it, should be dismissed
because it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seeks
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See Prison Litigation Reform
Act of 1995 § 804, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); § 805, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). In the prior Order
Magistrate Judge Newman held that all of Plaintiff's claims could proceed. However, because
Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se, the Court must re-screen his tendered amended
complaint under the PLRA regardless of whether the amendment is considered under Rule 15.
Nutt v. Seta, No. 1:19-CV-460, 2020 WL 581837, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 6, 2020), report and
recommendation adopted, No. 1:19-CV-460, 2020 WL 1042476 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 4, 2020).
III.
As noted, Plaintiff’s proposed Amended Complaint seeks to add Mr. Houdeshell as a co-
plaintiff and to seek damages on Mr. Houdeshell’s behalf. (ECF No. 31 at 2 & 43). However,
Mr. Houdeshell has not signed the pleading and it appears that Plaintiff intends to proceed on
Mr. Houdeshell’s behalf. “The Sixth Circuit has made clear that prisoners proceeding pro se
may not represent other prisoners in federal court.” Falls-Bey v. Cook, No. 2:17-CV-1103, 2018
WL 306610, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 5, 2018), report and recommendation adopted, No. 2:17-CV-
1103, 2018 WL 645988 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 31, 2018) (citing Marr v. Michigan, No. 95-1794, 1996
WL 205582, at *1 (6th Cir. Apr. 25, 1996)); see also Corn v. Sparkman, No. 95-5494. 1996 WL
185753, at *1 (6th Cir. Apr. 17, 1996) (“A prisoner cannot bring claims on behalf of
other prisoners.”); Proctor v. Applegate, No. 07-12414, 2008 WL 2478331, n.3 (E.D. Mich. June
16, 2008) (“It is well-established that plaintiff Proctor may only represent himself with respect to
his individual claims, and may not act on behalf of other prisoners.”).
The proposed amendments relating to Mr. Houdeshell aside, the original and proposed
amended pleadings are the same. Accordingly, Plaintiff will not be granted leave to amend to
add Mr, Houdeshell as a co-plaintiff. If Mr. Houdeshell wishes to seek relief with this Court, he
may file his own complaint and seek leave to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee
required to commence a civil suit on his own behalf. See Brown v. Ohio, No. 17-764, 2018 WL
798881, at *4 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 5, 2018).
IV.
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended
Complaint (ECF No. 31) is DENIED. For good cause shown, Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to
extend the discovery and dispositive motion deadlines (ECF No. 33) is GRANTED. Discovery
shall be completed by May 10, 2021. Dispositive motions shall be filed by June 10, 2021. The
parties are SPECIFICALLY ADVISED that no further extensions will be granted absent
extraordinary cause.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: March 24, 2021 /s/ Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers_________
ELIZABETH A. PRESTON DEAVERS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE