govinfo:USCOURTS-moed-4_22-cv-00158-0

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI 
EASTERN DIVISION 
 
REGINALD BYRON CLEMONS, et al.,  ) 
 ) 
                    Plaintiffs, ) 
 ) 
          v. ) No. 4:22-CV-158-SRW 
 ) 
MICHELLE BASHAM, et al., ) 
 ) 
                    Defendants. ) 
 
 
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 
 
 This matter is before the Court upon its own motion. The complaint filed in th is action 
purports to be brought by three prisoner Plaintiffs: Reginald Byron Clemons, Steven Stafford, and 
Wendell Harris.  ECF No. 1 at 1.  Plaintiffs bring this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against three 
Missouri Department of Corrections employees at the Eastern Reception Diagnostic and 
Correctional Center (“ERDCC”): Michelle Basham, Carl Hart, and Mike Miller.  Id. at 1; ECF No. 
1-1 at 18-19.   The allegations of the complaint pertain to an incident that occurred at ERDCC in 
February 2021.  ECF No. 1 at 1.  P laintiffs Stafford and Harris appear to still be inca rcerated at 
ERDCC; however, Plaintiff Clemons is currently confined at Jefferson City Correctional Center .  
Id. at 1-3.  Despite being brought jointly, only Plaintiff Clemons has signed the complaint
1 and 
filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.  ECF Nos. 1 at 4, 2.   
 This Court does not permit multiple prisoners to  join together in a single lawsuit under 
Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 2  See, e.g., Georgeoff v. Barnes, No. 2:09-CV-
 
1 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a), “[e]very pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed … 
by the party personally if the party is unrepresented.” 
 
2 Rule 20(a)(1) allows permissive joinder of plaintiffs in one action if: “(A) they assert any right to relief jointly, 
severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of 
Case: 4:22-cv-00158-SRW     Doc. #:  7     Filed: 02/14/22     Page: 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>
2 
 
14-ERW, 2009 WL 1405497 (E.D. Mo. May 18, 2009).  There are several reasons for this.  First, 
the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) requires that “if a prisoner brings a civil action or files 
an appeal in forma pauperis, the prisoner shall be required to pay the full amount of a fil ing fee.”  
28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).  Multiple filing fees cannot be collected for one case filed by multiple 
plaintiffs.  Thus, the PLRA’s requirement that a prisoner pay the full fee for filing a lawsuit would 
be circumvented in a multiple -plaintiff case s ubject to the PLRA.  See 28 U.S.C. § 1914.  
Therefore, the requirement of § 1915(b)(1) that each prisoner pay  the full amount of a filing fee 
requires individual prisoners to bring separate suits, rather than file jointly under Rule 20.  See 
Hubbard v. Haley, 262 F.3d 1194 (11th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1136 (2002). 
Second, courts have noted “ the impracticalities inherent in multiple -prisoner litigation 
militate against the permissive joinder allowed by Rule 20. ”  Hagwood v. Warden, No. 08-6010 
(RBK), 2009 WL 427396, at *2 (D. N.J. Feb. 19, 2009). 
Among the difficulties noted by these courts are the need for each plaintiff to sign 
the pleadings, and the consequent possibilities that documents may be changed as 
they are circulated or that prisoners may seek to compel prison authorities to 
permit them to gather to discuss the joint litigation.  [Other] courts have also 
noted that jail populations are notably transitory, making joint litigation difficult. 
A final consideration for [one court] was the possibility that “coercion, subtle or 
not, frequently plays a role in relations between inmates.” 
Id. (quoting Swenson v. MacDonald, No. CV 05-93-GF-CSO, 2006 WL 240233, at *4 (D. Mont. 
Jan. 30, 2006)).    
Third, joinder of prisoners’ claims under Rule 20 would allow prisoners to avoid the risk 
of incurring strikes under § 1915(g) so long as one of those prisoners’ claims is viable, because § 
1915(g) imposes a strike only if the entire action is dismissed.  Prisoners may not  circumvent the 
PLRA penalties associated with filing frivolous actions by joining claims under Rule 20. 
 
transactions or occurrences; and (B) any question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs will arise in the action.”  
Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(1).  
Case: 4:22-cv-00158-SRW     Doc. #:  7     Filed: 02/14/22     Page: 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>
3 
 
For these reasons, the Court will not allow P laintiffs to proceed jointly in this action.  
Because Plaintiff Clemons signed the complaint and filed a motion for leave to proceed in f orma 
pauperis, the Court will  strike the two other plaintiffs from this case  (Stafford and Harris) and 
order the Clerk to open new cases for  them.  Nothing in this Memorandum and Order should be 
construed as precluding the Plaintiffs from cooperating to the extent that they are able or as 
preventing consolidation of these cases for trial if that becomes appropriate at a later date.   Once 
Plaintiffs Stafford and Harris  are stricken from this case, this matter will proceed with named 
Plaintiff Reginald Byron Clemons only.   
Accordingly, 
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to STRIKE Plaintiffs 
Steven Stafford and Wendell Harris from this action. 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, using the complaint filed in the instant matter [ECF 
No. 1], the Clerk shall open a new prisoner civil rights case for each of the two stricken 
Plaintiffs: Steven Stafford and Wendell Harris. 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to file a copy of this 
Memorandum and Order in each new case. 
 
 
                                                                  ____________________________________ 
           E. RICHARD WEBBER 
           SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
 
Dated this 14
th day of February, 2022.   
 
Case: 4:22-cv-00158-SRW     Doc. #:  7     Filed: 02/14/22     Page: 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight