Dixon v. Bentley et al
ORDER denying 6 Motion to enroll as class action lawsuit. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bert W. Milling, Jr on 4/4/2012. copy mailed to plaintiff (srr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
JESSE WAYNE DIXON,
ROBERT BENTLEY, et al.,
CIVIL ACTION 12-0041-CB-M
This action is before the Court on Plaintiff’s
“Constitutional Violation Complaint Incorporating Motion to
Enroll at a Class Action Lawsuit” (Doc. 6), construed as a
motion for class certification.
After consideration, the motion
The party moving for class certification must satisfy the
four elements for a class action contained in Rule 23(a) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
1551, 1556 (11th Cir. 1984).
Gilchrist v. Bolger, 733 F.2d
Rule 23(a) provides:
One or more members of a class may sue
or be sued as representative parties on
behalf of all members only if (1) the class
is so numerous that joinder of all members
is impracticable, (2) there are questions of
law or fact common to the class, (3) the
claims or defenses of the representative
parties are typical of the claims or
defenses of the class, and (4) the
representative parties will fairly and
adequately protect the interests of the
“These requirements are commonly referred to as the
prerequisites of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and
adequacy of representation. . . .”
Franze v. Equitable
Assurance, 296 F.3d 1250, 1253 (11th Cir. 2002) (quotation marks
and citations omitted).
All four elements must be satisfied in
addition to one of the subparts of Rule 23(b).
J. C. Bradford & Co., 827 F.2d 718, 721 n.2 (11th Cir.), cert.
denied, 485 U.S. 959 (1988).
It is unclear to the Court if Plaintiff is asserting that
the class is made up of all inmates in the custody of the
Alabama Department of Corrections or just those in the Baldwin
The Court notes that plaintiff is no longer in the
Baldwin county Jail but is now at Mt. Meigs.
In any event,
Plaintiff has not addressed in his motion any of the four
elements necessary for the granting of a class action.
addition, inasmuch as counsel for the class has not been
identified, the Court deduces that plaintiff intends to
represent the class.
However, the Court observes that
ordinarily a pro se litigant does not have the legal training
and experience required to protect the interests of the class.
Cotner v. Knight, 61 F.3d 915, 1995 WL 441408, at *15 (10th Cir.
And the Court in a ' 1983 action is not
under a duty to cure the lack of legal training by appointing
counsel because appointment of counsel is not mandated by the
Constitution in a civil case.
Howard v. Dougan, 221 F.3d 1334,
2000 WL 876770, at *1 (6th Cir.) (unpublished), cert.
denied, 532 U.S. 948 (2001).
Even though plaintiff=s
qualifications and experience are not before the Court, the
Court is, nonetheless, of the opinion that plaintiff is not an
exception to the general rule based on the pleadings that the
Court has reviewed.
See Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405,
1407 (4th Cir. 1975) (ruling that a pro se prisoner=s competence
is too limited to represent the interests of others).
Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for class certification is
DONE this 4th day of April, 2012.
s/BERT. W. MILLING, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
“Unpublished opinions are not considered binding precedent, but
they may be cited as persuasive authority.” 11TH CIR. R. 36-2
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?