Robert Lee Harling v. Dougherty County Jail, et al.

Summary

The court orders pro se prisoner Robert Lee Harling to either pay the filing fee or submit a complete motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The court also directs him to file a recast complaint complying with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8, 18, and 20, linking each claim to specific defendants and limiting the complaint to related claims and ten pages.

Holdings

1. A prisoner who wishes to proceed in the action must either pay the filing fee or submit a properly completed motion to proceed in forma pauperis, including the required certified six-month trust-fund account statement.
2. Harling must file a recast complaint containing a short and plain statement of his entitlement to relief, with claims and factual allegations stated clearly enough to identify the alleged constitutional violation and responsible defendant.
3. A claim that is not connected to a specific defendant through factual allegations may be dismissed.
4. When multiple defendants are named, claims may be joined only if the plaintiff seeks relief against the defendants jointly, severally, or alternatively based on the same transaction or occurrence or series thereof, and a common question of law or fact will arise.
5. The court would not subpoena or review videos, disciplinary records, or other evidence before the recast complaint underwent the required preliminary screening and survived review.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Harling was required to pay the filing fee or submit a properly completed in forma pauperis application with the required six-month trust-account statement.
2. Whether the complaint failed to satisfy Rule 8(a)(2) because it consisted primarily of conclusory allegations and constituted a shotgun pleading.
3. Whether Harling was required to file a recast complaint linking each claim to specific defendants and limiting the action to claims satisfying Rule 20's joinder requirements.
4. Whether the court could subpoena or review discovery materials before determining whether the recast complaint stated a claim and survived preliminary screening.

Disposition

other