stating that a pro se prisoner litigant cannot bring an action on behalf of other prisoners
How later courts described this case
- stating that a pro se prisoner litigant cannot bring an action on behalf of other prisoners
- stating plaintiff, a pro se prisoner, could not seek relief on behalf of fellow inmates nor represent them in class action suit
- “[I]t is plain error to permit [an] imprisoned litigant who is unassisted by counsel to represent his fellow inmates in a class action.” (quoting Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975)); see also Johnson v. Brown, 581 F. App’x 777, 781 (11th Cir. 2014
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
DEANTHONY A. JACKSON, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v. Case No. 8:25-cv-3537-KKM-CPT
STEPHEN WHYTE, et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________
ORDER
Jackson and three other pretrial detainees in the Manatee County Jail
initiated this action by jointly filing a pro se civil rights complaint under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiffs also move for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, (Doc. 2), and for class action status, (Doc. 3). The four Plaintiffs name
as Defendants two assistant public defenders, a private attorney, and the
judges of the 12th Judicial Circuit Court. They assert unrelated complaints
about their state criminal prosecutions.
The Complaint must be dismissed. Plaintiffs may not join together in a
single civil rights suit to share the filing fee. In considering whether the Prison
Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) allows multi-plaintiff, in forma pauperis, civil
actions, the Eleventh Circuit has concluded that “the plain language of the
PLRA requires that each prisoner proceeding IFP pay the full filing fee[.]”
Hubbard v. Haley, 262 F.3d 1194, 1198 (11th Cir. 2001).
Further, it would be error to allow Plaintiffs, who are pro se pretrial
detainees, to proceed jointly. See Wallace v. Smith, 145 F. App’x 300, 302 (11th
Cir. 2005) (“[I]t is plain error to permit [an] imprisoned litigant who is
unassisted by counsel to represent his fellow inmates in a class action.”
(quoting Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975)); see also
Johnson v. Brown, 581 F. App’x 777, 781 (11th Cir. 2014) (stating that a pro se
prisoner litigant cannot bring an action on behalf of other prisoners); Bass v.
Benton, 408 F. App’x 298, 299 (11th Cir. 2011) (stating plaintiff, a pro se
prisoner, could not seek relief on behalf of fellow inmates nor represent them
in class action suit).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Complaint, (Doc. 1), is
DISMISSED without prejudice to each Plaintiff filing a new complaint in a
new case under a new case number, solely on his own behalf. The motions for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis, (Doc. 2), and for class action status, (Doc.
3), are DENIED as moot. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case.
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on January 14, 2026.
athryn’ Kimball Mizelle
United States District Judge