Harms v. Allen et al (INMATE2)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS that Plaintiff's 3 Brief in Support of Complaint which the court also construes as containing a Motion for Class Certification be DENIED; that this case be referred back to the undersigned for appropriate proceedings. Objections to R&R due by 4/17/2006. Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 4/4/2006. (cb, )
Harms v. Allen et al (INMATE2)
Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION _________________________________ B R U C E HARMS, #202 029 P l a in tif f , v. R IC H A R D ALLEN, et al., D e f e n d a n ts . __________________________________ * * * * * 2:06-CV-283-MHT (WO)
R E C O M M E N D A T I O N OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE T h is is a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in which Plaintiff, Bruce Harms, a state inmate, c h a lle n g e s the conditions of confinement within the Alabama prison system. Plaintiff filed a brief in support of his complaint which the court also construes as containing a motion for c la s s certification under Rule 23, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (See Doc. No. 3.) Upon re v ie w of the motion for class certification, the court concludes that this motion is due to be d e n ie d . P la i n t if f is an inmate who seeks to represent the interests of all inmates confined w ith in correctional facilities operated by the Alabama Department of Corrections. Among th 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." R u le 23(a)(4), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court concludes that the pro se p ris o n e r plaintiff is not an adequate class representative able to fairly represent the class. See
Page 2 of 3
O x e n d in e v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405 (4th Cir. 1975); Hummer v. Dalton, 657 F.2d 621 (4th C ir. 1981); Ethnic Awareness Organization v. Gagnon, 568 F. Supp. 1186 (E.D. Wis. 1983); In m a te 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, P la in tif f 's motion for class certification is due to be denied. C O N C L U SIO N A c c o rd in g ly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that: 1 . Plaintiff's motion for class certification (Doc. No. 3) be DENIED. 2. This case be referred back to the undersigned for appropriate proceedings. It is further ORDERED that on or before April 17, 2006 the parties may file objections to the R e c o m m e n d a ti o n . Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the
M a g is tra te 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 th a t this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable. F a ilu re to file written objections to the proposed findings and advisements in the M a g is tra te Judge's Recommendation shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the D is tric t Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar the party from a tta c k in g on appeal factual findings in the Recommendation accepted or adopted by the D is tric t Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v.
Page 3 of 3
W a in w r ig 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 4 th day of April, 2006.
/s/Charles S. Coody CHARLES S. COODY C H IE F 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?