CRUZ

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiffs are federal inmates at the United States Penitentiary (USP) Coleman II, who have filed a civil rights complaint (Doc. 1; Compl.), a motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. 2; Inj. Motion), and a motion for temporary restraining order (TRO) (Doc. 3; TRO Motion). They have not paid the filing fee or moved to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), though it appears they intend to proceed IFP. See Doc. 1-1 at 123. Only one Plaintiff, Nathan Railey, signed the complaint and motions. Railey says he proceeds on behalf of himself and as “next friend” or “agent” of the other Plaintiffs.¹ Compl. at 18.

Id. at 21-27, 44. He raises tort claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act and the Administrative Procedure Act (alleged illegal conduct by officers,² general poor conditions in the special housing unit (SHU), failure to supervise/train, and property deprivation) and constitutional claims under Bivens³ (violations of the First and Eighth Amendments). Id. at 3-9. Most of the claims and allegations are about Plaintiff Cruz, who Railey alleges is transgender and suffers multiple psychological issues, including bi-polar disorder, depression, and schizophrenia. Id. at 98.4 cv-199-GMG (N.D. W. Va.) (section 2241 case dismissed for lack of standing); Case No. 1:18-cv-716-SHR-EB (M.D. Pa.) (dismissed for failure to state a claim).

Case No. 5:20-cv-224-Oc-36PRL (challenging the BOP’s decision to transfer a non-gang-member inmate, Clarence James, to an “active” prison); Case No. 3:18-cv-199-GMG (N.D. W. Va.) (alleging the BOP transferred an “in-active” inmate, James Bulger, to an “active” prison, where he was killed within 24 hours of his arrival); Case No. 4:14-cv-2517-RCC-BPV (D. Az.) (alleging Railey’s transfer to USP Coleman would place him danger of being assaulted because he is a sex offender).

Guilford Knight Det., 510 F. App’x 863 (11th Cir. 2013) (holding the district court properly dismissed a multi-plaintiff complaint and required that each inmate “file a new, individual complaint, and either pay the full filing fee or submit an individual motion to proceed [IFP]” (citing Hubbard, 262 F. 3d at 1195, 1198)). This case is due to be dismissed because Plaintiffs have improperly joined their claims in a single complaint. If Plaintiffs wish to proceed, they must do so individually. Moreover, under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a person seeking to obtain “next friend” status must demonstrate the person on whose behalf the next friend seeks to proceed is a minor or incompetent. Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c). Railey makes no such showing. Even if he had, however, as a pro se, non-lawyer litigant, Railey may not represent other inmates in this federal civil action. See Hand v. Bibeault, 400 F. App’x 526, 528 (11th Cir. 2010) (“A nonattorney who is authorized to bring suit on behalf of a party may not appear pro se as that party’s ‘legal counsel.’” (italics removed)); M.D. Fla. R. 2.01(a) (“No person shall be permitted to appear or be heard as counsel for another in any proceeding in this Court unless first admitted to practice in the Court.”). See also Johnson v. Brown, 581 F. App’x 777, 781 (11th Cir. 2014) (affirming denial of a pro se inmate’s motion for class certification on the grounds that an inmate cannot bring an action on behalf of others (citing Timson v. Sampson, 518 F. 3d 870, 873 (11th Cir. 2008))). In light of the above, the Court will dismiss the case without prejudice subject to each Plaintiff’s right to initiate his own case to pursue viable claims personal to him. As to the request for injunctive relief, the Court finds Railey fails to demonstrate such relief is warranted. Injunctive relief, whether in the form of a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction, “is an ‘extraordinary and drastic remedy,’ and [the movant] bears the ‘burden of persuasion.’” Wreal, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., 840 F. 3d 1244, 1247 (11th Cir. 2016) (quoting Siegel v. LePore, 234 F. 3d 1163, 1176 (11th Cir. 2000)). To demonstrate entitlement to injunctive relief, a movant must show the following four prerequisites: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that irreparable injury will be suffered if the relief is not granted; (3) that the threatened injury outweighs the harm the relief would inflict on the non-movant; and (4) that entry of the relief would serve the public interest.

Schiavo ex rel. Schindler v. Schiavo, 403 F. 3d 1223, 1225–26 (11th Cir. 2005). Railey does not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of his claims. Additionally, courts generally will not entertain requests for injunctive relief related to matters of prison administration. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 547-48 (1979) (“[T]he operation of our correctional facilities is peculiarly the province of the Legislative and Executive Branches

. . . not the Judicial.”).⁶ Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 1. Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. 2) is DENIED. 2. Plaintiffs’ motion for temporary restraining order (Doc. 3) is DENIED.

3. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice.

4. The Clerk shall enter judgment dismissing this case without prejudice, terminate any pending motions, and close the file.

5. The Clerk shall send each Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form. If Plaintiffs choose to file individual cases, they should not put this case number on the form because the Clerk will assign a new case number upon receipt.

Jax-6 Cc: Pro se Plaintiffs