Zachary C. Bolitho United States Magistrate Judge.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Zachary C. Bolitho United States Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Eddie Powell, an inmate of the Florida Department of Corrections (FDOC), filed an “Emergency Judicial Notice” listing himself and two other inmates (Jermaine A. Harris and John Wilkes) as plaintiffs. (Doc. 1). The judicial notice was initially filed in the Middle District of Florida, and it was subsequently transferred to the Northern District of Florida under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). (Doc. 2).
The Court construes the “Emergency Judicial Notice” as a civil rights complaint. But Plaintiffs Powell, Harris, and Wilkes may not pursue this civil rights action jointly. The Eleventh Circuit has held that inmates may not join together in a single civil suit so as to share the mandatory filing fee. See Hubbard v. Haley, 262 F.3d 1194 (11th Cir. 2001). The Hubbard court found that “the intent of Congress in promulgating the [Prison Litigation Reform Act] was to deter frivolous civil actions brought by prisoners by requiring each individual prisoner to pay the full amount of the required fee.” Id. at 1195. The circuit court affirmed the district court's decision to dismiss the case filed by multiple prisoner-plaintiffs and to require each prisoner to file an individual action accompanied by the full filing fee or an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Id. at 1195, 1198.
The holding of Hubbard applies even when prisoner-plaintiffs claim that their lawsuit has merit and is brought under exigent circumstances. See Bowens v. Turner Guilford Knight Detention, 510 Fed.Appx. 863, 863 (11th Cir. 2013) (affirming district court's dismissal of civil rights complaint in which six inmates of a jail in Miami, Florida, joined their claims together in a single suit). Therefore, neither inmates Harris or Wilkes, nor any other inmate, may join Plaintiff Powell in this civil rights action. Nor may an incarcerated inmate bring an action on behalf of other inmates. Johnson v. Brown, 581 Fed.Appx. 777, 781 (11th Cir. 2014).
Consistent with Hubbard, this action should be dismissed.If inmates Powell, Harris, and Wilkes each wish to pursue their claims, then they must file separate actions, each accompanied by the full filing fee or an application to proceed in forma pauperis. See Bowens, 510 Fed.Appx. at 863 (affirming dismissal of prisoner complaint that attempted to join claims by multiple prisoner-plaintiffs).
Additionally, Plaintiff did not file his complaint on the Court-approved form, as required by the Local Rules. See N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 5.7(A) (“The Court need not-and ordinarily will not-consider a petition, motion, or complaint that is not filed on the proper form.”). Nor was Plaintiff's filing accompanied by the $405.00 fee for filing a civil case ($350.00 filing fee and $55.00 administrative fee), or an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. This Court's Local Rules provide that a “party who files . . . a civil case must simultaneously either pay any fee required under 28 U.S.C. § 1914 or move for leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.” N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 5.3.
Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED without prejudice under Hubbard v. Haley, 262 F.3d 1194 (11th Cir. 2001).
Notice to the Parties
Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed within fourteen days of the date of this Report and Recommendation. Any different deadline that may appear on the electronic docket is for the Court's internal use only and does not control. An objecting party must serve a copy of the objections on all other parties. A party who fails to object to the magistrate judge's findings or recommendations contained in a report and recommendation waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.