IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

HUNTINGTON DIVISION

RONNIE LEE HAMMONDS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No. 3:18-cv-01412

WESTERN REGIONAL JAIL AUTHORITY; CAPTAIN ALDRAGE; CAPTAIN SAVILLA; and ANY C.O. that has worked in A5 Section,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER Nineteen prisoners at the Western Regional Jail in Barboursville, West Virginia have jointly filed a Complaint pursuant to

alleging that the defendants are violating the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution by subjecting the prisoners to inhumane living conditions at the Jail; including, being exposed to human waste without cleaning supplies and basic toiletry items; being left without clothing for days and weeks; being denied bedding; and being denied medical treatment, exercise, and recreation. Plaintiffs request prospective injunctive relief and monetary damages. Although the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has not explicitly ruled that multiple prisoners are prohibited from joining together as plaintiffs in a single § 1983 action, at least one circuit has determined that the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) bars such joinders. Hubbard v. Haley,

(11th Cir. 2001) (holding that PRLA requirement of a separate filing fee for each prisoner prevents prisoners from joining claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 20). “Even in light of more flexible holdings in other circuits regarding the permissive joinder of multiple prisoner plaintiffs, see Hagan v. Rogers,

(3d Cir. 2009); Boriboune v. Berge,

(7th Cir. 2004); In re Prison Litigation Reform Act,

(6th Cir. 1997), courts in [the Fourth Circuit] have found the analysis in Hubbard

persuasive and have declined to permit prisoner plaintiffs to join in one civil action.” Griffin v. Nettles, No. 4:18-cv-02469-RBH-TER,

(D.S.C. Nov. 22, 2013) (collecting cases); also Galeas v. United States, No. 5:14-CT-3225-F,

, at *1 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 27, 2015); Fleming v. Francis, No. 5:13–CV–21991,

, at *1 (S.D.W. Va. June 10, 2014) (“The undersigned finds that multiple- prisoner plaintiffs may not proceed in forma pauperis in the same civil action”); Watterson v. Terrell, No. 1:10CV184–RJC,

, at *1 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 7, 2010) (finding that multiple plaintiffs subject to the PLRA may not join a lawsuit “so as to pro-rate the mandatory filing fee.”); Greene v. Phipps, No. 7:09-cv-00100,

, at *6 (W.D. Va. Sept. 24, 2009) (citing to the conclusion in Hubbard that by joining parties and claims in one case, prisoners seek to bypass the PLRA’s three-strikes

provision and filing fee requirement). In addition to the courts’ disinclination to allow multiple prisoners to join in one § 1983 complaint, the law is well-settled that “it is plain error for a pro se inmate to represent other inmates in a class action,” Fowler v. Lee,

, 165 (4th Cir. 2001). Moreover, while the living conditions about which the plaintiffs complain are collectively described as inhumane, it is clear from the Complaint that the plaintiffs have been exposed to different circumstances and various levels of alleged harm at different times, involving different transactions with different defendants, and resulting in different injuries. Consequently, joinder is not appropriate for the additional reason that each plaintiff’s claim will require individualized determinations. See Griffin,

, at *1. Accordingly, the claims of the plaintiffs must be separated into discreet civil actions and must undergo a preliminary review pursuant to

(e)(2). Therefore, the Clerk of Court is directed as follows:

This civil action, 3:18-cv-01412, shall pertain only to Plaintiff Ronnie Lee Hammonds and shall be styled Ronnie Lee Hammonds v. Western Regional Jail Authority; Captain Aldrage; Captain Savilla; and any C.O. that has worked in A5 section. The Clerk is ORDERED to open a new civil action for each of the following plaintiffs, listing the same defendants as those named above: 1. Kevin Esque 2. Kenith Hall 3. Cody Villalobos 4. Derreck Hatfield 5. Clyde F. Chafin, III 6. Kelly J. Snyder

7. Jeremy D. Bartram 8. Samuel W. Stout 9. Bobby Allen 10. Joshua Snyder 11. Jace Wiblin 12. Matthew Canterbury 13. Allen Wilks 14. Richard Daniels 15. Joshua Elkins 16. Timothy Ward 17. Rusty Johnson 18. Rodney Salmons Once the new civil actions are open, the eighteen listed Plaintiffs shall be terminated as parties in this action. In each newly-opened actions, this Order shall be docketed, followed by the Complaint filed herein, and the Standing Order in Re Assignment of Magistrate Judges. Upon the opening and docketing of the new cases, the undersigned will conduct a preliminary review of each case. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to all of the plaintiffs. ENTERED: November 15, 2018

Uni ates Magistrate Judge