Wolfe et al v. Florida Attorney General Office et al, No. 2:2018cv00589 - Document 14 (M.D. Fla. 2018)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER re: 1 Complaint is dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions, enter judgment, and close this case. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 10/2/2018. (SLU)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Wolfe et al v. Florida Attorney General Office et al Doc. 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION MATTHEW MICHAEL CHANDLER WOLFE, EDWIN LEDESMA and ANTHONY DAKOTA ANDREWS, Plaintiffs, v. Case No: 2:18-cv-589-FtM-38CM FLORIDA ATTORNEY GENERAL OFFICE, STATE OF FLORIDA, STATE ATTORNEY’S OFFICE and 20TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, Defendants. / OPINION AND ORDER1 Plaintiffs Wolfe, Ledesma, and Andrews, who are pretrial detainees confined in the Lee County Jail, filed a civil rights complaint alleging violations of U.S. and Florida constitutional law in connection with their respective arrests and prosecutions. See generally Doc. 1 at 5-7. Each Plaintiff seeks permission for leave to proceed in this action in forma pauperis. See Doc. 6, Doc. 8 and Doc. 11. Eleventh Circuit law prohibits prisoner plaintiffs from proceeding in forma pauperis in the same civil action. Hubbard v. Haley, 262 F.3d 1194, 1196 (11th Cir. 2001)(affirming 1 Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or websites. These hyperlinks are provided only for users’ convenience. Users are cautioned that hyperlinked documents in CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By allowing hyperlinks to other websites, this Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their websites. Likewise, the Court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their websites. The Court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the Court. Dockets.Justia.com dismissal of multi-plaintiff prisoner action as conflicting with PLRA’s requirement that each prisoner must pay the filing fee); Bowens v. Turner Guilford Knight Detention, 510 F. App’x 863, 864 (11th Cir. 2013)(affirming dismissal of complaint filed by six inmates as violative of the PLRA and § 1915’s requirement that each plaintiff is required to pay the filing fee in an initial action). Additionally, while a pro se litigant has a right to litigate his individual claims in federal court, “[i]t is plain error to permit [an] imprisoned litigant who is unassisted by counsel to represent his fellow inmates in a class action.” Wallace v. Smith, 145 F. App’x 300, 302 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam); see also Smith v. Warden, Hardee Corr.Inst., 597 F. App’x 1027 (11th Cir. 2015). Consequently, pro se prisoner Plaintiff’s cannot jointly prosecute this action. To the extent that the Plaintiffs wish to prosecute the claims asserted in the instant Complaint they must initiate separate actions in their individual names, accompanied by the $350.00 filing fee or a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: 1. The Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice. 2. The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions, enter judgment, and close this case. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 2nd day of October 2018. SA: FTMP-1 Copies: All Parties of Record 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
