Davis et al v. The Dept. of Corrections of the State of Georgia, No. 1:2010cv01800 - Document 2 (N.D. Ga. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER AND OPINION that the complaint is Dismissed Without Prejudice. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr on 7/8/10. (dr)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Davis et al v. The Dept. of Corrections of the State of Georgia Doc. 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION TROY DAVIS, TYRONE HULT, INMATES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS FOR THE STATE OF GEORGIA, Plaintiffs, PRISONER CIVIL RIGHTS 42 U.S.C. § 1983 FILED IN CHAMBERS THOMAS W. THRASH JR U. S. D. C. Atlanta JUl . 82010 JAMES N. HATIEN. Clerk By' A. J._ \jj) v. ~! THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS FOR THE STATE OF GEORGIA, Defendants. DepulyCI rk CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:10-CV-1800-TWT ORDER and OPINION Plaintiffs, prisoners in the State ofGeorgia and in Washington, D.C., have filed this action without prepayment of the filing fee or an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. No. 1.) For the reasons discussed below, this action shall be dismissed without prejudice. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PRLA") it is proper for a district court to dismiss a civil action brought by multiple inmates. Hubbard v. Haley, 262 F.3d 1194, 1198 (11th Cir. 2001). In order to allow for independent 28 U.S.C. § 1915A frivolity determinations to be made concerning each individual Plaintiff, and AO 72A (Rev.8/82) Dockets.Justia.com to insure that each Plaintiff pays the full filing fee, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice, and Plaintiffs must refile separate complaints.] IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the instant civil rights complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send, to each Plaintiff who has provided his individual address to the Court, a form civil rights complaint, a financial affidavit, and a copy of this Order. IT IS SO ORDERED, this IS'" day of ~ , 2010. THOMAS W. THRASH, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Because the complaint is unclear and falls far short of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8's requirement ofplainly stating each claim for relief, the Court does not direct the Clerk of Court to open separate civil actions for each plaintiff at this time. 1 2 AO 72A (Rev.8/82)
]]>
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.
