LONGINO
v.
MASTERS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A pro se litigant cannot represent others in a class action, and a complaint alleging denial of access to courts must demonstrate actual injury or hindrance to pursuing a legal claim.
Pro se plaintiffs, residents of a Florida Civil Commitment Center, sued FCCC employees alleging inadequate law library access and legal assistance. Th…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse 28 U.S.C. § 1915(E)(2)(B) Dismissal Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause is before the Court on consideration of Samuel Longino’s and Willis Bailey’s (collectively, “Plaintiffs’”) pro se civil rights complaint filed against four employees of the Florida Civil Commitment Center (“FCCC”) in Arcadia, Florida. (Doc. 1). Plaintiffs also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 4). Plaintiffs seek to bring this complaint as a class action on behalf of themselves and 569 other residents of the FCCC. (Doc. 1 at 1). Because Plaintiffs seek to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court reviews the complaint to determine whether it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii). For the reasons given below, the Court dismisses this action without prejudice to any individual resident filing a separate complaint.
I. Complaint
Plaintiffs complain that the FCCC does not have an adequate law library. (Doc. 1 at 6). Instead, the facility has a computer lab with twenty computers for the entire resident population, with only ten of those designated as legal computers. (Id. at 7). This leaves residents who wish to do legal work with only four and a half hours per week in the computer lab. (Id.) Moreover, the FCCC employee who runs the lab is untrained in the law and has no experience in conducting legal research via Lexis Nexis, and FCCC residents are not allowed to provide legal advice to other residents. (Id.) Therefore, neither the employee nor other residents can assist fellow residents who use the computer lab for legal purposes. (Id. at 8). Residents have asked the administration to provide a “law library that would guarantee them adequate, effective, and meaningful access to the courts.” (Id.)
Specifically, they have requested training on Lexis Nexis and on drafting legal documents. (Id.) They also asked the facility to hire a person trained in the law to run the library and provide legal assistance. (Id.) However, their requests were denied or unanswered by the defendants. (Id.) Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief in the form of an adequate law library and a resident legal assistance program to educate residents on Lexis Nexis and on the preparation of legal documents. (Doc. 1 at 11).
II. Standard of Review
A federal district court is required to review a civil complaint filed in forma pauperis and to dismiss any such complaint that is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The mandatory language of 28 U.S.C. § 1915 applies to all proceedings in forma pauperis.1 Specifically, the section provides: Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that-- (A) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or (B) the action or appeal- (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
III. Analysis
A. Plaintiffs cannot bring a civil rights action on
behalf of fellow residents. Plaintiffs filed this complaint on behalf of all FCCC residents. A prerequisite for class-action certification is a finding by the Court that the representative party or parties can “fairly and adequately protect the interest of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). The Court cannot make this finding. The Eleventh Circuit has been clear that a non-lawyer proceeding pro se may not represent the interests of others. See Bass v. Benton, 408 F. App’x 298, 298 (11th Cir. 2011) (“We have interpreted 28 U.S.C. § 1654, the general provision permitting parties to proceed pro se, as providing ‘a personal right that does not extend to the representation of the interests of others.’”)(quoting Timson v. Sampson, 518 F. 3d 870, 873 (11th Cir. 2008)); Wallace v. Smith, 145 F. App’x 300, 302 (11th Cir. 2005) (“It is plain error to permit [an] imprisoned litigant who is unassisted by counsel to represent his fellow inmates in a class action.”). Accordingly, this “class-action” complaint will be dismissed without prejudice to each resident filing his own 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint and any appropriate motions.
B. Plaintiff has not stated a claim upon which relief may
be granted. Even if the Court construes this complaint as filed solely on behalf of Mr. Longino, he has not stated a claim upon which relief can be granted. There is no freestanding constitutional right to a law library or legal assistance. Rather, when alleging a denial of meaningful access to the courts, Mr. Longino (or any other plaintiff) must “go one step further and demonstrate that the alleged shortcomings in the library or legal assistance program hindered his efforts to pursue a legal claim.” Lewis v. Casey,
518 U.S. 343, 351(1996). In other words, to have standing to bring this action, Mr. Longino must show an actual injury caused by the FCCC’s failure to allow him adequate access to the courts. This is because, while the courts may provide relief to claimants who suffer actual or imminent harm, it is not the Court’s role “to shape the institutions of government in such fashion as to comply with the laws and the Constitution.” Lewis, 518 U.S. at 349 (.
IV. Conclusion
Because they have not alleged an actual or imminent injury, Plaintiffs lack standing to bring this action in a personal capacity. In addition, Plaintiffs may not bring a class action case on behalf of other residents of the FCCC. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). Because this dismissal is based on circumstances that cannot be changed in an amended complaint (standing and class certification), providing Plaintiffs an opportunity to amend the complaint would be futile. See Silberman v. Miami Dade Transit, 927 F. 3d 1123, 1133 (11th Cir. 2019) (recognizing that no leave to amend is required when doing so would be futile). Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: 1. Plaintiffs’ class action complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice to any individual resident filing his own 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint along with a filing fee or motion to proceed as a pauper. 2, The Clerk of Court is directed to deny any pending motions as moot, close this case, and enter judgment accordingly. DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on November 30, 2022.
9 at of off | 0 hy Akiel
JGHN E. STEELE
SHNIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
SA: FTMP-2 Copies to: Samuel Longino and Willis Bailey
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007)
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (U.S. 1972)
- Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483 (11th Cir. 1997)
- Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (U.S. 1996)
- Silberman v. Miami Dade Transit, 927 F.3d 1123 (11th Cir. 2019)
- Brown v. Johnson, 387 F.3d 1344 (11th Cir. 2004)
- Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870 (11th Cir. 2008)
- Clark v. State OF Ga. Pardons & Paroles Bd., 915 F.2d 636 (11th Cir. 1990)
- Bryant S. Troville v. Venz, 303 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir. 2002)