UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT TOPAZ JOHNSON, No. 23-15299

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. v. 2:22-cv-01235- TLN-EFB HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON; SYLVA, Sergeant; BRIAN KIBLER, Warden, OPINION

Defendants-Appellees.

IAN HENDERSON, No. 23-15396

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. v. 2:22-cv-01235- TLN-EFB HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON; SYLVA, Sergeant; BRIAN KIBLER, Warden,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding 2 JOHNSON V. HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON

Argued and Submitted August 15, 2024 San Francisco, California

Filed January 27, 2025

Before: Susan P. Graber, Consuelo M. Callahan, and Lawrence VanDyke, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Callahan; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge Graber

SUMMARY *

Prison Litigation Reform Act

Reversing the district court’s denial of a joint application to proceed in forma pauperis brought by three California inmates and its dismissal of their jointly filed lawsuit, the panel held that the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) does not prohibit prisoners from proceeding together in lawsuits, but it does require that each prisoner in the lawsuit pay the full amount of the filing fee. The district court denied the inmates’ joinder as co- plaintiffs and informed them that they could each proceed with their claims in separate lawsuits. The district court reasoned that if multiple prisoners were permitted to proceed with a joint action and each paid the full filing fee, as required by the PLRA, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), the amount * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. JOHNSON V. HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON 3

of fees collected would exceed the amount permitted by statute for commencement of the action, in violation of § 1915(b)(3), and the apparent intent of Congress. The district court further found that lawsuits brought by multiple prisoners proceeding pro se are incompatible with Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, permitting permissive joinder, because such lawsuits present unique problems not presented by ordinary civil litigation. The panel held that while § 1915(b) requires prisoners to each pay the full filing fee to commence an action, the statute poses no obstacle to prisoners joining in a lawsuit. The district court erred by looking at PLRA subsections 1915(b)(1) and (b)(3) in isolation and thereby failed to internally harmonize § 1915(b), which according to its terms poses no prohibition against multi-prisoner lawsuits. Prisoners may join in a lawsuit and proceed together under § 1915 so long as they each pay the full amount of a filing fee. The panel further held that the district court abused its discretion inn denying plaintiffs’ permissive joinder under Rule 20 based on hypothetical concerns that were not based on the record. Partially concurring and partially dissenting, Judge Graber agreed with the majority opinion that the PLRA does not prohibit prisoners from proceeding jointly under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and that the district court abused its discretion when it denied plaintiffs’ request for permissive joinder. But she respectfully dissented from the holding that each plaintiff must pay a filing fee. In Judge Graber’s view, the PLRA provides for only one filing fee per civil action. 4 JOHNSON V. HI