Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

TIMOTHY WALDEN, KURT VAN BRYANT,

and ALEXANDER WILLIAMS,

Plaintiffs,

vs. Case No. 3:10cv103/LAC/EMT

STATE OF FLORIDA CORP.,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

ORDER, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiffs, all of whom are prisoners proceeding pro se, jointly initiated this action by filing

a civil complaint (Doc. 1). Each Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Docs. 14, 25,

26), and the undersigned granted each motion (Docs. 15, 27, 28). Upon further review, the

undersigned concludes that Plaintiffs may not proceed jointly in this action. 

Under the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915 et seq. (“PLRA”), prisoners who

file civil actions in federal courts are required to pay full filing fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). In

Hubbard v. Haley, the Eleventh Circuit held that a district court properly dismissed a multi-plaintiff

in forma pauperis civil action in which a group of eighteen prisoners sought to join their claims

pursuant to Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and thus pro-rate the mandatory filing

fees among the group instead of individually paying the full fee. 262 F.3d 1194, 1197–98 (11th Cir.

2001) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)). In so holding, the court implicitly found that multiple prisoners

may not bring a joint civil action if they proceed in forma pauperis as “the PLRA clearly and

unambiguously requires” each prisoner to pay the full amount of a filing fee. Id.; see also 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(b). The court thus required each prisoner plaintiff to re-file an individual civil action
Page 2 of 3

accompanied by the full filing fee or an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Hubbard, 262

F.3d at 1195, 1198.

Following Hubbard, several district courts within the Eleventh Circuit have similarly

dismissed actions in which multiple prisoners sought to bring claims in a single action. See Marshall

v. Lopez, No. 10-21717-CIV, 2010 WL 3118305 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 2, 2010) (dismissing civil case

jointly filed by two prisoners without prejudice to each plaintiff’s commencing new, separate

action); Kirk v. Waters, No. 8:07cv468-T-17-EAJ, 2007 WL 951802 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 28, 2007)

(same); Bowes v. Alder, No. 1:06-CV-1109, 2006 WL 1626834 (N.D. Ga. Jun. 5, 2006) (dismissing

consolidated actions of prisoners and ordering prisoners to file separate actions and filing fees

pursuant to Hubbard); Scott v. Strength, No. CV 106-56, 2006 WL 2327469 (S.D. Ga. Aug. 8, 2006)

(refusing to allow joinder of additional plaintiff prisoner under Hubbard ). Courts outside of the

Eleventh Circuit have reached a similar conclusion and additionally noted that severance of multiple

prisoner actions is required by the text of the PLRA itself. See, e.g., Osterloth v. Hopwood, No. CV

06 152 M JCL, 2006 WL 3337505 (D. Mont. Nov. 15, 2006) (noting that to allow joinder of prisoner

actions would run afoul of the requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(3) that the amount of the fee

collected in a case governed by the PLRA must not exceed the fee imposed for “commencement of

a civil action”).

In light of Hubbard, the undersigned concludes that Plaintiffs may not proceed jointly in this

action. However, in light of the fact that Plaintiff Walden has made partial payments of the filing

fee, and neither of the other Plaintiffs has done so, Plaintiff Walden should be permitted to proceed

in this action as the sole Plaintiff. If Plaintiffs Van Bryant and Williams wish to proceed with their

claims, each of them must commence a new, individual civil action by filing a complaint on his own

behalf and either paying the full $350.00 filing fee or submitting an individual motion to proceed

in forma pauperis.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The orders granting Plaintiffs’ Kurt Van Bryant and Alexanders Williams’ motions

to proceed in forma pauperis (Docs. 27, 28) are hereby VACATED.

2. The clerk of court shall transmit a copy of this order via facsimile to: Department

of Corrections, Attention: Agency Clerk at (850) 487-0949. The clerk of court shall also mail a

Case No. 3:10cv103/LAC/EMT
Page 3 of 3

copy of this order to: Department of Corrections, 2601 Blairstone Road, Tallahassee, FL 32399-

2500, Attention: Agency Clerk.

And it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

1. That Plaintiffs Kurt Van Bryant and Alexander Williams be DISMISSED as

Plaintiffs from this action. 

2. That this matter be referred to the undersigned magistrate judge for further review

of Plaintiff Timothy Walden’s claims.

At Pensacola, Florida, this 18th day of August 2010.

/s/ Elizabeth M. Timothy 

ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Any objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed within

fourteen (14) days after being served a copy thereof. Any different deadline that may appear

on the electronic docket is for the court’s internal use only. A copy of objections shall be

served upon all other parties. Failure to object may limit the scope of appellate review of

factual findings. See 28 U.S.C. § 636; United States v. Roberts, 858 F.2d 698, 701 (11th Cir.

1988).

Case No. 3:10cv103/LAC/EMT