IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

ROY FALLS-BEY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. Civil Action 2:17-cv-1103

Judge George C. Smith

Magistrate Judge Jolson

WARDEN, BRIAN COOK, et al., 

Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma 

pauperis (Doc. 1) and for an initial screen pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). For the foregoing 

reasons, Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis Motion is GRANTED (Doc. 1), and it 

RECOMMENDED that all plaintiffs other than Plaintiff himself be DISMISSED from this 

action. Finally, Plaintiff is DIRECTED leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days of 

this Order.

I. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) is 

GRANTED. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff is assessed the full amount of the Court’s $350.00 filing fee. 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). 

Plaintiff’s supporting documents reveal that he currently possesses an insufficient amount

to pay the full filing fee. The custodian of Plaintiff’s inmate trust account at the institution of his 

residence is DIRECTED to submit to the Clerk of the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of Ohio, as an initial partial payment, 20% of the greater of either the average 

monthly deposits to the inmate trust account or the average monthly balance in the inmate trust 
2

account for the six (6) months immediately preceding the filing of the complaint. If Plaintiff 

does not currently possess the funds to pay the initial filing fee, the amount assessed shall be 

collected from Plaintiff’s account when such funds become available. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(b)(4) (“In no event shall a prisoner be prohibited from bring a civil action . . . for the 

reason that the prisoner has no assets and no means by which to pay the initial partial filing 

fee.”). 

Once the initial partial filing fee is paid, the custodian shall submit 20% of the inmate’s 

preceding monthly income credited to the account if, during that month, the balance of that 

account exceeds $10.00, until the full fee of $350.00 has been paid. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). If 

Plaintiff is transferred to another prison, the custodian should forward this Order to that 

institution so that the new custodian of Plaintiff’s account can collect and remit the monthly 

partial payment.

Checks are to be made payable to:

 Clerk, U.S. District Court

Checks are to be sent to:

Prisoner Accounts Receivable

Joseph P. Kinneary United States Courthouse

Room 121

85 Marconi Blvd.

Columbus, OH 43215

The prisoner’s name and case number must be noted on each remittance.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff be allowed to prosecute his action without 

prepayment of fees or costs and that judicial officers who render services in this action shall do 

so as if the costs had been prepaid.
3

The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this Order to the Plaintiff and the 

prison cashier’s office. The Clerk is further DIRECTED to forward a copy of this Order to the 

Court’s financial office in Columbus.

II. INITIAL SCREEN

Because Plaintiff, a prisoner, seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or 

employee of a governmental entity, this Court must conduct an initial screen of the complaint. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss the complaint, “or any portion of the complaint,” 

if it determines that the complaint or claim is frivolous or 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. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A(b).

The Court is unable to address the merits of Plaintiff’s individualized claim because he

attempts to bring this case as a class action. The Sixth Circuit has made clear that prisoners 

proceeding pro se may not represent other prisoners in federal court. Marr v. Michigan, No. 95-

1794, 1996 WL 205582, at *1 (6th Cir. Apr. 25, 1996) (stating that “an imprisoned litigant who 

is not represented by counsel may not represent a class of inmates because the prisoner cannot 

adequately represent the interests of the class”); see also Palasty v. Hawk, 15 F. App’x 197, 200

(6th Cir. 2001) (affirming district court’s refusal to certify a class action proposed by a pro se

plaintiff inmate because “pro se prisoners are not able to represent fairly the class”); 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.”).
4

Thus, Plaintiff may pursue only his individualized claim in this case. Therefore, it is 

RECOMMENDED that all purported plaintiffs, other than Plaintiff Roy Falls-Bey, be 

DISMISSED from this action. 

III. PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT

Because the class allegations in the complaint are pervasive, the Court is unable to 

decipher Plaintiff’s individualized claim. As such, Plaintiff is hereby DIRECTED to file an 

amended complaint consistent with this Order. Pursuant to Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, that complaint must contain a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s 

jurisdiction, a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,

and a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the alternative or different types 

of relief. The amended complaint must be filed within 30 days or this case may be dismissed. 

This Court shall conduct an initial screening of Plaintiff’s individualized claim upon receipt of 

the amended complaint. If this matter proceeds, the Court shall then direct service of summons 

and complaint on Defendants.

Procedure on Objections to Report and Recommendation

If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen 

(14) days of the date of this Report, file and serve on all parties written objections to those 

specific proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made, together with 

supporting authority for the objection(s). A Judge of this Court shall make a de novo

determination of those portions of the Report or specified proposed findings or recommendations 

to which objection is made. Upon proper objections, a Judge of this Court may accept, reject, or 

modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made herein, may receive further 
5

evidence or may recommit this matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1).

The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to the Report and 

Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to have the District Judge review the Report 

and Recommendation de novo, and also operates as a waiver of the right to appeal the decision of 

the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 

(1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

Procedure on Objections to Order

Any party may, within fourteen days after this Order is filed, file and serve on the 

opposing party a motion for reconsideration by a District Judge. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(A), Rule 

72(a), Fed. R. Civ. P.; Eastern Division Order No. 91-3, pt. I., F., 5. The motion must 

specifically designate the order or part in question and the basis for any objection. Responses to 

objections are due fourteen days after objections are filed and replies by the objecting party are 

due seven days thereafter. The District Judge, upon consideration of the motion, shall set aside 

any part of this Order found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

This Order is in full force and effect, notwithstanding the filing of any objections, unless 

stayed by the Magistrate Judge or District Judge. S.D. Ohio L.R. 72.3.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: January 5, 2018 /s/ Kimberly A. Jolson

KIMBERLY A. JOLSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE