***DO NOT DOCKET IN THIS CASE - DOCKET IN CASE NO. 4:25-cv-403 JOHNSON v. COUNTRYMAN

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
HERRON LEE JOHNSON, 	:
:
Petitioner, 	:
v. 	: 	Case No. 4:25-cv-318-CDL-AGH
:
SHERIFF GREG COUNTRYMAN, 	:
:
Respondent. 	:
________________________________ 	:
ORDER
In accordance with the Court’s previous orders and instructions, Petitioner has filed
a Recast Complaint indicating that he wishes to proceed with this case pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 (ECF No. 7). 	In his Recast Complaint, Petitioner challenges various
conditions at the Muscogee County Jail. A review of court records shows that Petitioner
has filed another § 1983 case in this Court that is also related to the conditions in the
Muscogee County Jail, Johnson v. Herbert, No. 4:25-cv-403-CDL-AGH (M.D. Ga. Nov.
24, 2025).
Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes this Court to
consolidate actions that “involve a common question of law or fact.”1 	Consolidation of
Petitioner’s cases will conserve judicial resources and permit more efficient resolution of
1“[T]he lack of any Rule 42(a) motion from any party in either of the two cases is no
impediment to consolidation if the relevant considerations warrant same.” Chambers v.
Cooney, No. 07-0373-WS-B, 2007 WL 3287364, at *1 (S.D. Ala. Nov. 2, 2007) (citing
Devlin v. Transp. Comm. Int’l Union, 175 F.3d 121, 130 (2d Cir. 1999) (“A district court
can consolidate related cases under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) sua sponte.”)).
Case 4:25-cv-00318-CDL-AGH Document 9 Filed 01/07/26 Page 1 of 3

2
Petitioner’s related claims. It is therefore ORDERED that the above-captioned case, Case
No. 4:25-cv-318-CDL-AGH (M.D. Ga. Oct. 20, 2025), be CONSOLIDATED into
Johnson v. Herbert, Case No. 4:25-cv-403-CDL-AGH, and that the above-captioned case
be ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED.
Also pending before the Court is Petitioner’s motion to permit maintenance of a
class action. 	ECF No. 6 at 1. 	Because Petitioner is proceeding pro se before the Court,
however, he may not bring a class action on behalf of any other inmates. See e.g., Wallace
v. Smith, 145 F. App’x 300, 302 (11th Cir. 2005) (rejecting claim that “pro se in forma
pauperis litigant may bring a class action § 1983 complaint” because it would be “plain
error to permit [an] imprisoned litigant who is unassisted by counsel to represent his fellow
inmates in a class action” (quoting Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir.
1975)); see also Ferentinos v. Kissimmee Util. Auth., 604 F. App’x 808, 809 (11th Cir.
2015) (affirming dismissal where pro se litigant repeatedly ignored court’s warning that
class-action claims required counsel). This same general principle also prevents Petitioner
from seeking relief on behalf of any other inmate. 	See Massimo v. Henderson, 468 F.2d
1209, 1210 (5th Cir. 1972) (affirming dismissal of the portion of prisoner’s complaint that
sought relief on behalf of prisoner’s fellow inmates).2 	Petitioner’s motion (ECF No. 6) is
therefore DENIED to the extent he seeks to bring a class action.
In 	this 	same 	document, 	Petitioner 	also 	filed 	a 	motion 	for 	“summary
2 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), the
Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit
handed down prior to close of business on September 30, 1981.
Case 4:25-cv-00318-CDL-AGH Document 9 Filed 01/07/26 Page 2 of 3

3
judgment/judgment on the pleadings.” ECF No. 6 at 2. This motion is premature. Once
Petitioner’s cases are consolidated, his claims will be reviewed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915A and § 1915(e) to determine whether they should be dismissed as frivolous,
malicious, or for failure to state an actionable claim. 	If Petitioner’s claims survive this
screening process, the Court will provide the parties with instructions on discovery and the
filing of dispositive motions, such as motions for summary judgment. Petitioner’s motion
(ECF No. 6) is thus DENIED to the extent he seeks summary judgment or judgment on
the pleadings.
SO ORDERED, this 7th day of January, 2026.
S/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
Case 4:25-cv-00318-CDL-AGH Document 9 Filed 01/07/26 Page 3 of 3