United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Western Division
Dadrain Banks is incarcerated at the Pulaski County Detention
Facility (“PCDF”). On April 25, 2019, Banks filed
various documents with the Court including grievances and
receipts, which were docketed as a pro se complaint
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. No. 1). Banks was
instructed to pay the required filing fee or an application
to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2). When
Banks did not timely do so, his case was dismissed.
See Doc. Nos. 3 & 4. Banks later filed the
required application and his case was reopened. See
Doc. No. 21. On July 29, 2019, the Court granted Banks'
application to proceed in forma pauperis and
directed him to amend his complaint to describe only one
factually related incident or issue because the various
complaints filed by Banks in this case describe numerous
unrelated claims (Doc. No. 26). Banks filed a Fourth Amended
Complaint on August 9, 2019 (Doc. No. 31).
meantime, Banks filed several other § 1983 cases. The
first of those was filed on April 23, 2019, after Banks sent
in documents such as grievances and receipts. See
No. 4:19-cv-00291 DPM-BD, Doc. No. 1. Banks was ordered to file an
amended complaint in that case narrowing his case to one
factually related incident. See Doc. No. 10 in No.
4:19-cv-00291. On July 16, 2019, Banks filed a document with
the heading Amended Complaint/Objections/Statement of
Necessity. It was docketed in No. 4:19-cv-00291 as an amended
complaint (Doc. No. 14) and in this case as a notice (Doc.
No. 16). In that document, Banks alleged he had been
subjected to unsanitary conditions in the PCDF and had been
subjected to sexual harassment. Banks' amended complaint
was served on defendants in No. 4:19-cv-00291 (see
Doc. No. 19).
documents initially filed in this case include grievances
describing unsanitary conditions in the PCDF and sexual
harassment by guards at the PCDF. See Doc. No. 1 at
3, 5, 7, 9 & 11. He also attached commissary receipts and
order forms. Id. at 13-15. Banks later filed other
notices, exhibits, and amended complaints describing those
issues and others. See Doc. Nos. 6, 8, 11, 16, 18,
19, 22, 23 and 25. He also sent in more copies of commissary
receipts and order forms. See Doc. Nos. 7 & 14.
Because the various complaints filed by Banks in this case
describe numerous unrelated claims, he was ordered to file an
amended complaint identifying claims relating to one issue.
Doc. No. 26. Banks filed an amended complaint but did not
significantly narrow his claims. He continues to complain
about sexual harassment by certain officers and interference
with his commissary purchases, but also raises new claims
based on events that occurred after he filed the complaint in
this case. Specifically, he complains about interference with
his legal mail which caused him to miss deadlines and some of
his cases to be dismissed; about strip searches and
incidences of retaliation and excessive force occurring in
May of 2019; and about certain officers continuing to try to
see him naked in May and June of 2019. Doc. No. 31 at 4-9.
these claims are not all factually related to one another,
they may not be prosecuted in a single action against
multiple defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2).
Additionally, it is futile to allow Banks to amend his
complaint to include the new allegations he raises in his
most recent amended complaint because he could not have
exhausted his administrative remedies on these new claims
until after he filed the original lawsuit. The Eighth Circuit
Court of Appeals has held that exhaustion must occur before a
lawsuit is filed. See generally Johnson v. Jones,
340 F.3d 624, 628 (8th Cir. 2003). The only allegation in
Banks' most recent amended complaint that may relate to
Banks' original complaint is the sexual harassment he
complains of in No. 4:19-cv-00291 and the interference with
his commissary which appears to be the subject of No.
4:19-cv-00535. Because those claims (along with Banks'
allegations of unsanitary conditions) are pending in other
cases, there is no claim in this case on which Banks may
proceed. Accordingly, the Court vacates the Order granting
in forma pauperis and administratively closes this
case. Any amounts collected towards the filing fee in this
case are to be applied to No. 4:19-cv-00291. The Clerk of the
Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to the Pulaski
 See Doc. Nos. 1, 22, 23 and
 Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 18, a plaintiff may
bring multiple claims, related or not, against a single
defendant. To proceed against multiple defendants, plaintiff
must satisfy Fed.R.Civ.P. 20, which allows claims against
multiple defendants when the claims against them arise out of
the same series of occurrences, and present questions of fact
common to all defendants. See Mosley v. Gen. Motors
Corp., 497 F.2d 1330, 1333 (8th Cir. 1974) (Rule 20
permits “all reasonably related claims for relief by or
against different parties to be tried in a single
proceeding.”); see also Fulghum v. Allen, 2015
WL 5667479 at *1 (8th Cir. 2015); Harris v. Union Pacific
R. Co., 2013 WL 1187719 (E.D. Ark. 2013); Langrell
v. Union Pacific R. Co., 2012 WL 3041312 (E.D. Ark.
See also Banks v. Turn Key
Medical, No. 4:19-cv-00352 JM (regarding medical care);
Banks v. Israel et al., No. 4:19-cv-00535 SWW-JTR