Titorian Moore, Sr., et al. v. Sheriff David Davis, et al.

Moore v. Davis · United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, Macon Division · December 16, 2025 · No. 5:25-cv-493-TES-CHW

Summary

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia dismisses without prejudice a pro se, multi-plaintiff § 1983 complaint concerning the handling of incarcerated plaintiffs’ legal mail. The court holds that incarcerated plaintiffs may not join in a single in forma pauperis action under the Prison Litigation Reform Act and that pro se plaintiffs may not pursue class-action claims or represent other prisoners. Each plaintiff may file a separate complaint and must separately pay the filing fee or submit a proper in forma pauperis application.

Holdings

  1. Incarcerated plaintiffs proceeding in forma pauperis may not join together in a single action and pay only one filing fee; each prisoner must file a separate lawsuit and pay the full filing fee or separately satisfy the requirements for proceeding in forma pauperis.
  2. A pro se incarcerated plaintiff may not represent other prisoners in a class action or seek relief on behalf of other plaintiffs because an unrepresented litigant cannot adequately represent the interests of others.
  3. The joint complaint must be dismissed without prejudice, and the pending motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis must be denied as moot.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether multiple incarcerated plaintiffs may join as plaintiffs in one in forma pauperis action and pay only one filing fee under the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
  2. Whether a pro se incarcerated plaintiff may assert claims on behalf of other plaintiffs or maintain a class action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without counsel.
  3. Whether the joint complaint should be dismissed without prejudice and the motion to proceed in forma pauperis denied as moot.

Disposition

dismissed

Cases Cited (5)

  • Hubbard v. Haley, 262 F.3d 1194, 1197-98 (11th Cir. 2001)(followed)
  • Wallace v. Smith, 145 F. App'x 300, 302 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam)(followed)
  • Ferentinos v. Kissimmee Utility Authority, 604 F. App'x 808, 809 (11th Cir. 2015) (per curiam)(followed)
  • Massimo v. Henderson, 468 F.2d 1209, 1210 (5th Cir. 1972) (per curiam)(followed)
  • Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…