Opinion
5:21-cv-229 (MTT)
01-28-2022
DAVID MARTIN, Plaintiff, v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
After screening Plaintiff David Martin's complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), United States Magistrate Judge Charles H. Weigle recommends that Martin's claims be dismissed without prejudice. Doc. 10. Martin has not objected to the Recommendation, so pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court reviews the Recommendation for clear error.
After review, the Court accepts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. The Recommendation (Doc. 10) is ADOPTED and made the order of this Court. Accordingly, Martin's claims against defendants are DISMISSED without prejudice.
The motion to proceed and intervene (Doc. 9) filed by Martin and Charles Singletary, Jr., is DENIED as moot. As explained in the Recommendation, Martin does not have standing to raise claims in the interest of third parties. Doc. 10 at 3. Moreover, Singletary may not intervene as a matter of right because he is not “so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede [his] ability to protect [his] interest.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a)(2). Dismissal of Martin's action in no way prevents Singletary from filing his own 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action regarding “forced work.” Doc. 9 at 2. Permissive intervention is also inappropriate because a prisoner may not circumvent the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”)'s filing fee requirement by intervening in another prisoner's civil action. Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(b); see Hubbard v. Haley, 262 F.3d 1194, 1197-1198 (11th Cir. 2001) (holding prisoners may not join in an in forma pauperis § 1983 action because the PLRA requires separate actions and payment of the full filing fee by each prisoner).
SO ORDERED.