Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge

Ruben Castillo Sitting Judge if Other

than Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 12 C 0531 DATE 1/31/2012

CASE

TITLE

Ricky J. Whitehead (2010-1102110), et al. v. Cook County, et al.

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

This complaint has been filed by four Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs Ricky Whitehead’s and Quintan Davis’s motions for leave

to proceed in forma pauperis [3], [4] are entered and continued. Plaintiffs Charles Perkins and Rafeal Solebo must

either file an i.f.p. application on the proper form with the information required by Section 1915(a)(2) or pay the full

filing fee if they intend to remain a Plaintiff in this action. Plaintiffs’ complaint is dismissed without prejudice as each

named Plaintiff must sign the complaint. Plaintiffs are given leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days of this

order. The Clerk is directed to send Plaintiffs Charles Perkins (2011-1128056) and Rafeal Solebo (2011-1106121) an

i.f.p. application at the Cook County Jail. The Clerk is directed to send each of the four “Plaintiffs” (including Charles

Perkins (2011-1128056) and Rafeal Solebo (2011-1106121)) a copy of this order and an amended complaint form with

instructions. Plaintiffs’ failure to submit an amended complaint will result in dismissal of this case on the

understanding that they do not wish to proceed with this action in federal court at this time. Failure of any Plaintiff to

comply with this order will result in summary dismissal of this case as to that litigant, on the understanding that that

particular individual does not wish to join this lawsuit. 

O[For further details see text below.] Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT

 A complaint, identifying four Plaintiffs, has been received by the Court. Two of the Plaintiffs have filed a

motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (i.f.p). Plaintiffs Ricky Whitehead’s and Quintan Davis’s motions for

leave to proceed i.f.p. are entered and continued to allow these Plaintiffs an opportunity to opt out of the action as

discussed below. 

 The remaining two Plaintiffs failed to submit a motion for leave to proceed i.f.p. or to pay the required filing

fee. All persons filing complaints in this Court, even if more than one person files a case, must file an i.f.p. application

or pay the full filing fee. See Boriboune v. Berge, 391 F.3d 852, 854-55 (7th Cir. 2004) (each co-plaintiff is obligated

to pay a full, separate statutory filing fee). The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires all inmates to pay the full filing

fee, even those whose cases are summarily dismissed. In all prisoner civil lawsuits, the court must assess an initial

partial filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). The Court will direct correctional officials to deduct the initial filing fee

payment directly from each Plaintiff’s trust fund account. Thereafter, correctional authorities having custody of each

Plaintiff will be authorized and ordered to make monthly payments to the court of 20% of the preceding month’s

income credited to the trust fund account until such time as the full filing fee is paid for each litigant.

 To enable the Court to make the necessary assessment of the filing fee, Plaintiffs Charles Perkins and Rafeal

Solebo must submit the required i.f.p. application or pay the full $350 filing fee if they intend to remain a Plaintiff in

this action. 

 Furthermore, the complaint on file is only signed by Plaintiff Whitehead. All Plaintiffs must sign every

pleading pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5. Accordingly, the complaint on file is dismissed without

prejudice. 

 Plaintiffs are admonished as to issues that they may not be aware of that arise in multiple-plaintiff prisoner

litigation. Complaints by multiple prisoners may be filed in federal court if the criteria under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 20 are satisfied. See Boriboune, 391 F.3d at 854. However, issues in such litigation may cause some

Page 1 of 2
STATEMENT

prisoners to want to opt out of such litigation. First, each Plaintiff is required to pay the full filing fee. See Boriboune,

391 F.3d at 854. Thus, as discussed above, each Plaintiff is required to pay the $350 filing fee. Second, all Plaintiffs

must sign every pleading pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5. Pleadings that are not signed by all Plaintiffs

may be stricken. In addition, each submission must be served on each party, including all Plaintiffs, thus, copy and

postage costs are increased. Third, each litigant is accountable for his co-Plaintiffs’ claims; therefore, if one Plaintiff is

assessed a strike, any co-Plaintiff will be assessed a strike as well. Boriboune, supra, 391 F.3d at 856. Fourth, in

screening the amended complaint pursuant to Section 1915, the Court will consider whether unrelated claims should be

severed and, if such severance is appropriate, that claim will have to be prosecuted in a separate action that will require

the payment of another $350 filing fee. Therefore, each Co-Plaintiff may, if he wishes, advise the court that he wishes

to “opt out” of this lawsuit. Id.

 Lastly, the Court notes that Plaintiff Perkins filed another suit as the sole Plaintiff based on the same

allegations, Perkins v. Cook County Sheriffs Office, Case No. 12 C 0577 (Guzman, J.). Plaintiff Perkins cannot

proceed with two suits based on the same claims. If Plaintiff Perkins is proceeding on this claim, his latter filed claim

will be dismissed as duplicative. Plaintiff Perkins should advise the Court in both of his presently-pending matters

which suit he plans to proceed with.

Page 2 of 2