UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
WESTERN DIVISION
JERRY K. BAUSBY, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
JACKSON COUNTY DETENTION CENTER
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 17-0771-CV-W-GAF-P

ORDER
Plaintiffs, who currently are confined at Jackson County Detention Center in Kansas City,
Missouri, have filed pro se this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs have moved for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis without the prepayment of court fees or costs. Doc. 2. Only
Plaintiff Bausby has submitted a copy of his inmate account statement. Doc. 3. For the reasons set
forth below, Plaintiffs Cain, Yust, Weidler, Wyatt, and Moyer are severed and dismissed from this
case, and Plaintiff Bausby must submit a superseding amended complaint if he wishes to proceed
with this case
I. Plaintiffs Cain, Yust, Weidler, Wyatt, and Moyer are severed and dismissed.
As to whether joinder of Plaintiffs is appropriate , numerous federal courts examining the
impact of multiple plaintiffs attempting to join together in a single lawsuit have ruled that prisoner
plaintiffs should not be allowed to undermine the statutory requirement that each plaintiff must
pay the entire $350.00 imposed by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) when they file a case in federal court
and that “the impracticalities inherent in multiple-prisoner litigation mitigate against the permissive
joinder allowed by [Fed. R. Civ. P.] 20.”

Boyd v. Marion Cnty. Law Enforcement Ctr., 2010

WL 4681237, *1 (E.D. Mo. Nov. 10, 2010); see also Lilly v. Ozmint, 2007 WL 2021874, *1
(D.S.C. July 6, 2007); Wasko v. Allen Cnty. Jail, 2006 WL 978956 (N.D. Ind. 2006); Swenson v.

Case 4:17-cv-00771-GAF Document 5 Filed 09/18/17 Page 1 of 5

 MacDonald, 2006 WL 240233, *2-4 (D. Mont. Jan. 30, 2006).

Furthermore, only Plaintiff

Bausby has signed the complaint and has supported his request to proceed in forma pauperis
with a copy of his inmate account statement. Doc. 1, p. 7; Doc. 3. As a result, joinder is not
appropriate in this case, and this Court will sever and dismiss Plaintiffs Cain, Yust, Weidler, Wyatt,
and Moyer. If these Plaintiffs wish to pursue relief in this Court, they must file separate cases and
pay separate filing fees.
II. Plaintiff Bausby is advised of the filing fee.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), Plaintiff Bausby must pay the full $350.00 filing fee in
this civil action. See In re Tyler, 110 F. 3d 528, 529-30 (8th Cir. 1997) (under Prison Litigation
Reform Act, prisoners are responsible for filing fees the moment a civil action is filed). If granted
leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Plaintiff Bausby is entitled to pay the filing fee over time through
the payment of an initial partial filing fee to be assessed by the court under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)
and/or through periodic payments from Plaintiff’s inmate trust fund account as authorized in 28
U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).
Plaintiff Bausby will be granted leave to proceed in forma papueris. A review of Plaintiff’s
inmate account reveals that Plaintiff does not have sufficient funds to pay an initial partial filing fee
at this time. Therefore, if Plaintiff files a superseding amended complaint as set forth below, this
Court will require Plaintiff to pay the full $350.00 filing fee in this case by ordering Plaintiff’s
custodian to deduct periodic payments from Plaintiff’s inmate account pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(b)(2).
III. Plaintiff Bausby must submit a superseding amended complaint.
Due to insufficiencies in Plaintiff Bausby’s present complaint, Plaintiff Bausby must file a
superseding amended complaint as set forth below. To state a claim under Section 1983, “a plaintiff
must plead that each Government official defendant, through the official’s own individual actions,
has violated the Constitution.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.662, 676 (2009). A defendant must have

2
 

Case 4:17-cv-00771-GAF Document 5 Filed 09/18/17 Page 2 of 5

 been personally involved in the deprivation of plaintiff’s rights to be liable, Martin v. Sergeant, 780
F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1985), and pleadings must offer more than labels and conclusions;
formulaic recitations of the elements of a cause of action are not sufficient. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
A municipal jail or sheriff=s department is not a cognizable legal entity, or person, subject to suit
under § 1983, but is simply a subdivision of city government. See Ketchum v. City of West Memphis,
974 F. 2d 81, 82 (8th Cir. 1992); Diggs v. City of Osceola, 270 Fed. Appx. 469, at *1 (8th Cir. 2008).
While pro se claims are to be liberally construed, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972),
Plaintiff Bausby’s assertions in this case lack the requisite specificity. See Ellingburg v. King, 490
F.2d 1270, 1271 (8th Cir. 1974). Plaintiff Bausby does not allege sufficient individual actions by
specific government officials that caused him personal injury.

Instead, Plaintiff Bausby merely

names the Jackson County Detention Center as the sole Defendant in this case and raises issues
concerning hygiene in the jail. Doc. 1, pp. 1, 4-7. As set forth above, the Jackson County Detention
Center is not a cognizable legal entity or person subject to suit under § 1983.
Even if Plaintiff had named Jackson County, Missouri, as a Defendant, an entity of local
government may be held liable under § 1983 only for acts by its officials or employees that
implement a governmental custom or policy but may not be held vicariously liable for
unconstitutional acts by such employees. Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs. of the City of New York,
436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978); Scheeler v. City of St. Cloud, 402 F.3d 826, 832 (8th Cir. 2005). For a
local entity to be liable under a custom or policy, there must be a deprivation of a constitutional right
and that deprivation must be the result of the local entity’s policy or the policy of a policy maker
acting under color of state law. Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 480-83 (1986); see also
City of St. Louis v. Prapotnik, 485 U.S. 112, 121-31 (1988) (“The city cannot be held liable under §
1983 unless respondent proved the existence of an unconstitutional municipal policy.”). Plaintiff

3
 

Case 4:17-cv-00771-GAF Document 5 Filed 09/18/17 Page 3 of 5

 does not currently state a custom or policy of Jackson County, Missouri, that has violated his
constitutional rights.
As a result, Plaintiff Bausby is directed to file a superseding amended complaint in which he
sets out sufficient facts to show exactly who is involved in his claims and what each individual
Defendant specifically did or failed to do in violation of Plaintiff Bausby’s federally protected
rights. In his amended complaint, Plaintiff Bausby should include all of his allegations against every
defendant he is suing in this case. Any claims or defendants not specifically set forth in the amended
complaint will be deemed to have been abandoned. If Plaintiff Bausby seeks to proceed with this
case, he must file a superseding amended complaint, or this case will be dismissed pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 41(b).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
(1) Plaintiffs Cain, Yust, Weidler, Wyatt, and Moyer are severed and dismissed from this
case;
(2) Plaintiff Bausby is granted provisional leave to proceed in forma pauperis;
(3) the Clerk of the Court is directed to send Plaintiff Bausby another set of civil rights forms
for his use in filing an amended complaint;
(4) Plaintiff Bausby is directed to file a superseding amended complaint, as specifically
discussed herein; and
(5) Plaintiff' Bausby’s failure to amend as directed, on or before October 18, 2017, will result
in the dismissal of this case without further notice.

/s/ Gary A. Fenner________________
GARY A. FENNER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: September 18, 2017.

4
 

Case 4:17-cv-00771-GAF Document 5 Filed 09/18/17 Page 4 of 5

 5

Case Document 5 Filed 09/18/17 Page 5 of 5