X et al v. Everett et al, No. 3:2012cv00739 - Document 7 (E.D. Va. 2013)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge James R. Spencer on 6/24/13. Copy sent: Yes(tdai, )

Download PDF

X et al v. Everett et al Doc. 7 E 1 L IE |R| IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division JUN 24 2013 |U/ CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT RICHMOND. VA JOHNATHAN LEE X SMITH, et a/., Plaintiffs, Civil Action No. 3:12CV739 v. J. EVERETT, etal., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION The Court received a 42 U.S.C. § 1983] complaint from Virginia inmates Johnathan Lee X Smith ("Mr. Smith"),2 Raheem S. Al-Azim, Charles X, Victor X, Cedrick X, and Trible X ("Plaintiffs"). Plaintiffs assert, inter alia, that Defendants haveviolatedPlaintiffs' rightto the free exercise of their religion. Al-Azim, Charles X, Victor X, Cedrick X, and Trible X purport to "confer upon [Mr. Smith] the powerto pursue the instant claims for Plaintiffs unless and until this Courtdecides to request a lawyerto assist them with this action." (Compl. 17.) Plaintiffs request leaveto proceed informa pauperis. For the reasons that follow, Mr. Smithwill be dismissed as a party to the present action. 1That statute provides, in pertinent part: Every person who, under color of any statute ... of any State ... subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law.... 42U.S.C. §1983. 2Although Mr. Smith omitted his last name from his current submissions, for ease of reference the Court employs that name when referring to Mr. Smith. Dockets.Justia.com I. Rules Pertaining to Joinder Persons may join in one action as plaintiffs if: (A) they assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and (B) any question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs will arise in the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a). The Court exercises its discretion to permit joinder in accordance with the purpose of the Rule "'to promote trial convenience and expedite the final determinationof disputes, thereby preventing multiple lawsuits.'" Aleman v. Chugach Support Servs., Inc., 485 F.3d 206,218 n.5 (4th Cir. 2007) (quoting Saval v. BLS Ltd., 710 F.2d 1027, 1031 (4th Cir. 1983)). Thus, the Court appropriately denies joinder '"if it determines that the addition of the partyunderRule 20 will not foster the objectives of the rule, but will result in prejudice, expense, or delay.'" Id. (quoting 7 Charles Alan Wright, ArthurR. Miller& Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1652 (3d ed. 2001)). In order to monitor and curb Mr. Smith's abusive litigation, the Court subjected all of Mr. Smith's litigation to a pre-filing injunction. See In re Johnathan Lee X. Smith, 3:96mc06 (E.D. Va. Mar. 13,1996). A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order setting forth the pre-filing injunction is attached hereto. The injunction provides that "[a]bsent a bona fide emergency, Mr. Smith may not maintain more than one action at a time in this court." Id. ^ 1. The injunction further provides that Mr. Smith must attach to each complaint a separate document entitled "motion for leave to file and certificate of compliance." Id. ^ 2 (internal quotation marks omitted). In the motion for leave to file and certificate of compliance, among other requirement, Mr. Smith must: ii) identify by style, date filed and current status, all cases filed by him or in which he has been a plaintiff within the one year period preceding the filing of the certificate as well as the court in which the actions were filed; iii) certify that the claims he wishes to present are new claims never before raised and disposed of on the merits by any federal court and set forth why each claim could not have been raised in one of his previous actions; Id. The Court warned Mr. Smith that failure to comply strictly with the above requirements would result in denial of the motion for leave to file. Id. ^3. II. Analysis At the time the Court received the present action from Mr. Smith, Mr. Smith already had another action pending before this Court,Xv. U.S. Congress, No. 3:12cv45 (E.D. Va.). Additionally, Mr. Smith did not submit a "motion for leave to file and certificate of compliance" in conjunction with the present action. Finally, Mr. Smith fails to demonstrate entitlement to proceed informapauperis in the current action because he has three strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and he is not in imminent danger of serious physical harm. See Smith v. Dillman, Nos. 7:09cv00097, 7:09cv00462, 2011 WL 322826, at *1 (W.D. Va. Jan. 31, 2011) (recognizing that Mr. Smith has three strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)). Given these difficulties and the inherent problems in allowing joint prisoner litigation, see Hagan v. Rogers, 570 F.3d 146, 16263 (3d Cir. 2009) (Jordan, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), permitting joinder of Mr. Smith in this instance will not expedite the final determination of the parties' disputes and will likely prejudice the other plaintiffs. Accordingly, Mr. Smith will be DISMISSED as a party to 3That statute provides: In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action [informa pauperis] if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). this action. The Courtwill proceed to process the requests by the remaining Plaintiffs to proceed informa pauperis. The request of Plaintiffs to have Mr. Smith represent them will be DENIED. An appropriate Order shall accompanythis Memorandum Opinion. Date: L-Vi ) Richmond, Virginia JsL James R. Spencer United States District Judge

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.