Waseem Daker v. Timothy C. Ward, Commissioner, Georgia Department of Corrections, et al.

Another prisoner filed a civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, challenging his placement on the Georgia Department of Corrections (“GDC”) Tier II segregation program. Petitioner, also a GDC prisoner on Tier II segregation, moved to intervene in the ac­ tion. The district court denied intervention, citing Eleventh Circuit precedent holding that the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”) filing fee pro­ vision, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b), requires each prisoner to file his own action. The Eleventh Circuit dismissed Petitioner’s appeal, holding the same. The questions presented are as follows: I. Whether the Prison Litigation Reform Act re­ quires each prisoner filing a lawsuit to pay a separate filing fee. II. Whether the Prison Litigation Reform Act repealed Fed.R.Civ.P. 20(a) regarding joinder or oth­ erwise requires each prisoner filing a lawsuit to file a separate lawsuit. There is a three-way split among the federal Courts of Appeals on these two questions. The Sixth Circuit has answered both questions “no.” The Elev­ enth Circuit has answered both questions “yes.” The Third and Seventh Circuits have taken a middle ap­ proach, answering the first question “yes,” but the sec­ ond question “no.” Not only does Eleventh Circuit precedent not only answer the second question “yes,” but the Elev­ enth Circuit opinion below extended that precedent so 1 V as to repeal not only Fed.R.Civ.P. 20(a) regarding join­ der, but also Fed.R.Civ.P. 24 regarding intervention. Thus, this case also presents a third question^ III. Whether the Prison Litigation Reform Act repealed Fed.R.Civ.P. 24 regarding intervention or otherwise requires each prisoner to file a separate lawsuit. The Eleventh Circuit stands alone in answering both the second and third questions “yes.” n