Ward v. Knox County Jail et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
TYLIER WARD,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE KNOX COUNTY JAIL, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 	1:25-CV-189-TAV-MJD
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Now before the Court are Plaintiff’s pro se complaint for violation of 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 [Doc. 2], motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. 1], motion for the
Court to reconsider its denial of his request for the Court to secure affidavits for him [Doc.
8], and inmate trust account documents [Id. at 3–5]. 	The Court will address Plaintiff’s
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. 1] before addressing his motion
regarding the affidavits [Doc. 8] and his complaint [Doc. 2].
I. 	MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
As it appears from his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. 1] and
trust account statement [Doc. 8, pp. 3–5] that Plaintiff cannot pay the filing fee in a lump
sum, this motion [Doc. 1] is GRANTED.
Plaintiff is ASSESSED the civil filing fee of $350.00. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). The
custodian of Plaintiff’s inmate trust account is DIRECTED to submit to the Clerk, U.S.
District Court, 900 Georgia Avenue, Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402, as an initial partial
payment, whichever is the greater of: (a) twenty percent (20%) of the average monthly
Case 1:25-cv-00189-TAV-MJD Document 10 Filed 11/12/25 Page 1 of 5 PageID
#: <pageID>

2
deposits to his inmate trust account; or (b) twenty percent (20%) of the average monthly
balance in his inmate trust account for the six-month period preceding the filing of the
complaint. 	28 U.S.C.§ 1915(b)(1)(A) and (B). 	Thereafter, the custodian of Plaintiff’s
inmate trust account is directed to submit twenty percent (20%) of his preceding monthly
income (or income credited to his trust account for the preceding month), but only when
such monthly income exceeds ten dollars ($10.00), until the full filing fee has been
paid. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). 	The Clerk is DIRECTED to send a copy of this order to
the Court’s financial deputy and the custodian of inmate trust accounts at Plaintiff’s facility
to ensure payment.
II. 	MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
In his motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff firsts asks that the Court reexamine his
request that the Court secure certain affidavits for him by stating that he cannot take these
affidavits with him into federal custody but also cannot entrust them to his family [Doc. 8,
p. 1]. 	In the alternative, Plaintiff requests that the Court provide Plaintiff with copies of
the affidavits [Id.].
As the Court has now located the relevant affidavits in the Court’s record, however
[Doc. 2-1], it is apparent Plaintiff has already secured these affidavits in the Court’s record.
Thus, Plaintiff’s request that the Court secure these affidavits for him in the Court’s record
is moot, and Plaintiff’s motion regarding these affidavits [Doc. 8] is DENIED in part as
moot as to this request and GRANTED in part only to the extent that the Clerk is
DIRECTED to send Plaintiff a copy of the affidavits [Doc. 2-1], if she has not already
done so.
Case 1:25-cv-00189-TAV-MJD Document 10 Filed 11/12/25 Page 2 of 5 PageID
#: <pageID>

3
III. 	COMPLAINT
It is apparent that at least some of the claims that Plaintiff seeks to bring in his
complaint [Doc. 2] arise out of unrelated incidents and are against different Defendants [Id.
at 5, 7–32]. As such, they are not properly joined herein under Rule 20(a)(2) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
Specifically, while a plaintiff may join as many claims as he has against an opposing
party under Rule 18(a), Rule 20(a)(2) allows a plaintiff to sue multiple defendants only
where “(A) any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative
with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions
or occurrences; and (B) any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in
the action.” 	Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). 	Thus, Rule 20 does not permit plaintiffs to join
unrelated claims against different defendants in one lawsuit. 	See, e.g., George v. Smith,
507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (“A buckshot complaint that would be rejected if filed
by a free person—say, a suit complaining that A defrauded the plaintiff, B defamed him,
C punched him, D failed to pay a debt, and E infringed his copyright, all in different
transactions—should be rejected if filed by a prisoner.”); Smith v. Lavender, No. 2:22-CV-
1875, 2022 WL 4121929, at *6 (S.D. Ohio, Sept. 9, 2022) (severing unrelated claims a
prisoner plaintiff filed in the same complaint against different defendants) (citations
omitted); White v. Newcomb, No. 2:21-CV-249, 2022 WL 2763305, at *4–5 (W.D. Mich.
July 15, 2022) (providing that a plaintiff cannot join claims against multiple defendants in
one lawsuit “unless one claim against each additional defendant is transactionally related
Case 1:25-cv-00189-TAV-MJD Document 10 Filed 11/12/25 Page 3 of 5 PageID
#: <pageID>

4
to the claim against the first defendant and involves a common question of law or fact”
(quoting Proctor v Applegate, 661 F. Supp. 2d 743, 778 (E.D. Mich. 2009) and collecting
cases standing for the proposition that prisoners cannot join unrelated claims against
different defendants in a single lawsuit)).
Accordingly, the Clerk is DIRECTED to send Plaintiff a form § 1983 complaint,
and Plaintiff has fifteen (15) days from the date of entry of this order to file a single second
amended complaint with a short and plain statement of facts setting forth each alleged
violation of his constitutional rights and the individual(s) responsible. See LaFountain v.
Harry, 716 F.3d 944, 951 (6th Cir. 2013) (holding that “[u]nder Rule 15(a) a district court
can allow a plaintiff to amend his complaint . . . .”).
Also, Plaintiff is NOTIFIED that if he includes claims that are not properly joined
under Rule 20(a)(2) and Rule 18(a) in any amended complaint he files, the Court will
presume that he intends to proceed as to his first listed claim, and the Court will DISMISS
any other misjoined claims without prejudice.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above:
1. 	Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. 1] is
GRANTED;
2. 	Plaintiff is ASSESSED the $350 filing fee;
3. 	The custodian of Plaintiff’s inmate account is DIRECTED to submit
payments toward the filing fee in the manner set forth above;
4. 	The Clerk is DIRECTED to provide a copy of this order to the Court’s
financial deputy and the custodian of Plaintiff’s inmate account;
Case 1:25-cv-00189-TAV-MJD Document 10 Filed 11/12/25 Page 4 of 5 PageID
#: <pageID>

5
5. 	Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration [Doc. 8] is DENIED in part as moot
as to Plaintiff’s request that the Court secure these affidavits for him, and
GRANTED in part only to the extent that the Clerk is DIRECTED to send
Plaintiff a copy of the affidavits [Doc. 2-1], if she has not already done so;
6. 	Plaintiff has fifteen (15) days from the date of entry of this order to file an
amended complaint in the manner set forth above;
7. 	Plaintiff is NOTIFIED that any amended complaint he files will completely
replace his previous complaint [Doc. 1];
8. 	Plaintiff is NOTIFIED that if he fails to fully and timely comply with this
order, the Court shall order the case dismissed for want of prosecution
without further notice;
9. 	Plaintiff is NOTIFIED that if he includes claims that are not properly joined
under Rule 20(a)(2) and Rule 18(a) in any amended complaint he files, the
Court will presume that he intends to proceed as to his first listed claim, and
the Court will DISMISS any other misjoined claims without prejudice;
10. 	The Clerk is DIRECTED to send this memorandum and order to the three
addresses Plaintiff listed in his previous motion [Doc. 3, p. 2];
11. 	Plaintiff is NOTIFIED that if he timely responds to this order, the Court will
send all future Court orders in this case ONLY to the address from which he
sends that response unless and until he notifies the Court of any new address
change or he shows good cause for the Court to do otherwise; and
12. 	Plaintiff is ORDERED to immediately inform the Court and Defendants, or
their counsel of record, of any address changes in writing. Pursuant to Local
Rule 83.13, it is the duty of a pro se party to promptly notify the Clerk and
the other parties to the proceedings of any change in his or her address, to
monitor the progress of the case, and to prosecute or defend the action
diligently. 	E.D. Tenn. L.R. 83.13. 	Failure to provide a correct address to
this Court within fourteen days of any change in address will result in the
dismissal of this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Thomas A. Varlan
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-00189-TAV-MJD Document 10 Filed 11/12/25 Page 5 of 5 PageID
#: <pageID>