IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATHENS DIVISION DOMINICK DOVE, et al., Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION NO. v. 3:23-cv-00116-TES-CHW MADISON COUNTY JAIL, et al., Defendants.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Pro se Plaintiff Dominick Dove, an inmate at the Madison County Jail in Danielsville, Georgia, filed a Complaint [Doc. 1] under

on behalf of himself and two other inmates—Mason Dean and Ronald Rice. However, a pro se plaintiff may not represent the interest of other prisoners. See, e.g., Wallace 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 principle prevents Plaintiff Dove from representing the other inmates who are listed as plaintiffs in the Complaint. See [Doc. 1]; Massimo v. Henderson,

(5th Cir. 1972) (per curiam).1

1 Because the Eleventh Circuit was previously a part of the Fifth Circuit, cases decided by the Fifth Circuit prior to October 1, 1981, are precedential to this Court. Bonner v. City of Prichard,

(11th Cir. 1981). Plaintiffs also seek leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) via a statutorily incomplete application2 submitted only under Plaintiff Dove’s name. [Doc. 2]. Under

the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”), prisoners proceeding IFP may not join together as plaintiffs in a single lawsuit and pay only a single filing fee. Hubbard v. Haley,

(11th Cir. 2001) (affirming the district court’s dismissal of a

multi-plaintiff action under the PLRA on the ground “that each plaintiff had to file a separate complaint and pay a separate filing fee”). Instead, each prisoner must file his own lawsuit and pay the full filing fee. See

As the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals

noted in Hubbard, requiring each plaintiff to pay the full filing fee is consistent with Congress’s purpose of imposing costs on prisoners to deter frivolous suits.

at 1197– 98. The Plaintiffs are therefore not permitted to proceed IFP in an action together. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this Complaint without prejudice. Each

Plaintiff may file their own separate complaint asserting claims that are personal to that inmate and for which they will be individually responsible for docketing fees. SO ORDERED, this 7th day of November, 2023.

S/ Tilman E. Self, III TILMAN E. SELF, III, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 A prisoner seeking to proceed IFP must submit (1) an affidavit in support of his claim of indigence, and (2) “a certified copy of [his] trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) . . . for the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint.”

(a)(1)-(2).