Fields et al v. Illinois et al

Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DAVID FIELDS, and
PASSION GREER,
Plaintiff,
v.
ST. CLAIR COUNTY ILLINOIS, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 25-cv-01805-SPM
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MCGLYNN, District Judge:
This case was initiated by Plaintiffs David Fields and Passion Greer on September 19,
2025. (Doc. 1). Upon filing, Plaintiffs did not pay the filing fee; nor did they submit motions to
proceed without prepayment of the filing fee (IFP). Only Plaintiff Fields had signed the Complaint.
On the same day that Plaintiffs commenced this lawsuit, a second lawsuit was filed by Plaintiffs
in this district, Case No. 25-cv-01806-SMY. Except for the exhibits, the complaints in both cases
appear to be identical.
Because Plaintiffs missed the deadline to pay the filing fee or file motions to for leave to
proceed IFP in this case, on November 4, 2025, the Court entered a Notice of Impending Dismissal.
(Doc. 6). The Court ordered Plaintiffs by November 25, 2025, to advise the Court in writing
whether they intended to pursue this action. If they decided to litigate this case, then by November
25, 2025, Plaintiffs were to pay the $405.00 filing fee or each file a motion for leave to proceed
IFP, and Plaintiff Greer was to file a signed complaint. Plaintiffs were advised that any document
filed on behalf of multiple plaintiffs must be signed by each plaintiff and that any documents filed
that do not comply with this requirement would be stricken. See F ED . R. CIV . P. 11. Plaintiffs were
Case 3:25-cv-01805-DWD Document 10 Filed 11/26/25 Page 1 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 2 of 3
warned that failure to comply with the Notice of Impending Dismissal could result in dismissal of
this case for failing to comply with an order of the court. See F ED . R. CIV . P. 41(b).
Plaintiffs did not follow the Court’s instructions. On November 6, 2025, the Court received
the full filing fee of $405.00 for this case. But then on November 14, 2025, Plaintiff Greer filed a
motion asking for this case to be dismissed. (Doc. 8). Three days later, on November 17, 2025, the
Court received a document from Plaintiff Fields title “Response to Order,” in which he asks that
this case be combined with Case No. 25-cv-1806-SMY. (Doc. 9). He states, “Plaintiff Greer has
consented to this action, and authorizes Fields to say so.”
As Plaintiffs were advised, any document filed on behalf of multiple plaintiffs must be
signed by each plaintiff. As a non-attorney, Plaintiff Fields cannot sign papers for Plaintiff Greer
and Plaintiff Greer cannot sign papers for Plaintiff Fields. Plaintiff Greer is the only plaintiff to
have signed the Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiff Fields is the only plaintiff to have signed the
Response to Order. Not only are these two documents in direct contradiction with one another, but
they do not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. The Clerk of Court is therefore
DIRECTED to STRIKE the Motion to Dismiss and the Response to Order. (Doc. 8, 9).
The Court also DISMISSES Plaintiff Greer from this case without prejudice, as she has
failed to file a signed complaint by the deadline set by the Court. (See Doc. 6, p. 2). It appears that
Plaintiff Greer will still be able to litigate her claims in Case No. 25-cv-1806-SMY, where she has
signed the Complaint and submitted a motion for leave to proceed IFP.
Plaintiff Fields has paid the filing fee and signed the Complaint, and therefore, he can
continue to litigate his claims in this case. Plaintiff Fields is ADVISED that the Complaint is
currently awaiting preliminary review by the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915A. When this
review is completed, a copy of the Court’s screening order will be forwarded to Plaintiff.
The Court notes that while Plaintiffs may have wished to proceed together, Plaintiffs’
Case 3:25-cv-01805-DWD Document 10 Filed 11/26/25 Page 2 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 3 of 3
claims are more appropriately litigated in two separate cases. As Plaintiffs have already
experienced, there are consequences and difficulties of proceeding jointly in a single lawsuit. One
of the main difficulties is that plaintiffs, who are not represented, may not sign or file motions or
pleadings on behalf of each other. Therefore, as mentioned, each Plaintiff must sign every filing
affecting his or her claims. Meeting this requirement has been and would continue to be extremely
difficult, if not impossible, for Plaintiffs, given that Plaintiff Fields is incarcerated, and Plaintiff
Greer is not. The Complaint has not even been reviewed pursuant to Section 1915A, and
Defendants have not been served, yet Plaintiffs are already unable to coordinate their litigation and
obtain signatures before filing documents. Separate lawsuits will “secure the just, speedy, and
inexpensive determination of [this] proceeding.” FED . R. CIV. P. 1.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 	November 26, 2025
s/Stephen P. McGlynn
STEPHEN P. MCGLYNN
United States District Judge
Case 3:25-cv-01805-DWD Document 10 Filed 11/26/25 Page 3 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>