Webster v. Riley et al (INMATE 1)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 5 MOTION to Certify Class filed by Andre Lavel Webster, it is the Recommendation of the Mag. Judget that: 2) The plaintiff's motion for class certification be denied; 2) This case be referred back to the undersigned for appropriate proceedings; Objections to R&R due by 10/21/2005. Signed by Judge Vanzetta P. McPherson on 10/7/05. (vma, )
Webster v. Riley et al (INMATE 1)
Page 1 of 3
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES F OR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA N O R T H E RN DIVISION A N D R E LAVEL W E B S T E R , #159444, Plaintiff, v. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
CI V I L ACTION NO. 2:05-CV-948-F [WO]
BO B RILEY, et al., Defendants.
R E C O M M E N D A T I O N OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE This is a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in which Andre Lavel Webster ["Webster"], a state i n m a t e , challenges the conditions of confinement within the Alabama prison system. The plaintiff seeks to proceed before this court in a class action. Plaintiff's Complaint at 5. The court therefore construes the complaint to contain a motion for class certification under Rule 2 3 , Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Court Doc. No. 3. Upon review of the motion for c l a s s certification, the court concludes that this motion is due to be denied. T h e plaintiff is an inmate who seeks to represent the interests of all inmates confined with in correctional facilities operated by the Alabama Department of Corrections. Among t h e requirements which litigants must meet in order to maintain an action as a class action is that the "representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class." Ru le 23(a)(4), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court concludes that the pro se p r i s o n er plaintiff is not an adequate class representative able to fairly represent the class. See
Page 2 of 3
O x e n d i n e v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405 (4th Cir. 1975); Hummer v. Dalton, 657 F.2d 621 (4th Cir. 1981); Ethnic Awareness Organization v. Gagnon, 568 F.Supp. 1186 (E.D. W i s . 1983); I n m a t e s , Washington County Jail v. England, 516 F.Supp. 132 (E.D. Tenn. 1980), affirmed, 6 5 9 F.2d 1081 (6th Cir. 1981). Class certification in this case is therefore improper. Thus, t h e plaintiff's motion for class certification is due to be denied.
C O N C L U S IO N Ac cord ingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that: 1. The plaintiff's motion for class certification be DENIED. 2. This case be referred back to the undersigned for appropriate proceedings. It is further ORDERED that on or before October 21, 2005 the parties may file objections to the R e c o m m e n d a t i o n . Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the M agistrate Judge's Recommendation to which the party is objecting. Frivolous, conclusive o r general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are advised t h a t this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable. Fail u r e to file written objections to the proposed findings and advisements in the M agistrate Judge's Recommendation shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the D i s t r ic t Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar the party from
Page 3 of 3
a t t ac k i n g on appeal factual findings in the Recommendation accepted or adopted by the D i s t r ic t Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v.
W a i n w r i g h t, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 3 3 (11th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981, en b a n c ), adopting as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed d o w n prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981. D o n e this 7 th day of October, 2005.
/ s / Vanzetta Penn McPherson UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?