IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA VALDOSTA DIVISION

QUENTIN M. JACISSON, a, Do Plaintiffs, : Vv. CASE NO,: 7:22-cy-00058-WLS-TOQL Warden J BEASLEY, ef a/, . Defendants. .

ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiffs Quentin M. Jackson and Antonio Lamar Morgan’s pro se Complaint secking relief pursuant to

. (Doc. 1.) Both Plaintiffs are inmates currently incarcerated at Valdosta State Prison. (/¢.) Plaintiff Jackson has signed the Complaint (id) and filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed én forma pauperis (Doc. 2), as well as a declaration in support of his claims. (Doc. 7.) Plaintiff Morgan has filed a Motion for Appointed Counsel (Doc. 3), a motion to amend or cortect the Complaint (Doc. 5), and discovery matetials. (Doc. 6.) For the reasons that follow, Plaintiffs’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and all of Plaintiffs’s remaining pending motions (Docs. 2, 3, 5) are DENIED AS MOOT. The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) requires that a prisoner bringing a civil action in forma pauperis be responsible for paying this Court’s filing fee.

(b). Under the PLRA, multiple prisonets proceeding iv forma pauperis are not allowed to join as plaintiffs in a single lawsuit and pay a single filing fee. Hubbard v. Haky,

, 1998 (11th Cir. 2001) (affirming dismissal for multiple prisoners joined in single lawsuit proceeding in forma pauperis). Instead, each prisoner must file their own lawsuit and pay an individual filing fee. Id. (“[EJach [ptisonet] had to file a separate complaint a pay a separate filing fee.”) Following the 11th Circuit, Plaintiff are therefore not allowed to proceed together in forma pauperts in this action.

As it does not appear Plaintiffs claims would be barred by the applicable statute of limitations if permitted to refile their claims, the Complaint is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Each Plaintiff, if they so choose, may file a separate complaint as to the claims personal to him. Should the Plaintiffs do so, they must pay the applicable filing fee or submit a proper motion to proceed é# forma panperis.' The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to mail each Plaintiff a copy of the appropriate forms that Plaintiffs may use for this purpose if they so desite. As the present complaint may not proceed as a matter of law, Plaintiffs pending motions (Docs. 2, 3, 5) ace DENIED AS MOOT.

SO ORDERED, this 2% day of July, 2022. fi

W. LOUIS SANDS, SR. JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

! The Court notes that to the extent either Plaintiff seeks to bring their claims as a class action on behalf of his fellow inmates, a pro se Plaintiff may not represent the interests of other prisoners. See e.g., I¥ailace v. Smith,

(11th Cir, 2005) (per curiam) (citing Oxendine v. Williams,

(4th Cir, 1975) (finding it “plain error to permit [an] imprisoned litigant who is unassisted by counsel to represent his fellow inmates in a class action.”)). This same principal precents either pro se Plaintiff from seeking relief on behalf of the other Plaintiff in this action.