Claxton et al v. Ryan et al
Filing
9
ORDER that Plaintiffs' 2 Motion to Appoint Expert Witness is denied. Plaintiffs' 3 Motion for Class Certification is denied. Plaintiffs' 4 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order an Preliminary Injunction is denied. Plaintiffs 039; 6 Motion to Appoint Counsel is denied. This action is severed into 5 individual actions, one for each of the Plaintiffs: Richard William Claxton, Ronald Dale Birdwell, Jimmy Mamoth, Wayne Prince, Jr., and Thomas Placzek. The Clerk of Court mus t assign a new case number to each new individual action. The Clerk of Court must file a copy of the Complaint (Doc. 1) and this Order in each new case. The individual Plaintiffs must proceed separately from this point forward and will not be regarde d as co-plaintiffs, except upon further order of the Court. All further pleadings, motions or other papers submitted for filing by an individual Plaintiff in his separate case must be signed by the individual Plaintiff, or they will be stricken. This action is dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk of Court must close this case and enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 6/24/11.(ESL)
1
WO
KM
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Richard William Claxton, et al.,
10
Plaintiffs,
11
vs.
12
Charles L. Ryan, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. CV 11-1142-PHX-GMS (ECV)
ORDER
15
16
On May 10, 2011, Plaintiffs Richard William Claxton, Ronald Dale Birdwell, Jimmy
17
Mamoth, Wayne Prince, Jr., and Thomas Placzek, who are confined in the Arizona State
18
Prison Complex-Yuma, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
19
(Doc. 1). None of the Plaintiffs has filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis or
20
paid the filing fee. The Court will sever the action into separate cases.
21
The Court will also deny Plaintiffs’ Motion to Appoint Expert Witness (Doc. 2),
22
Motion for Class Action Certification (Doc. 3), Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and
23
Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 4), and Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 6).
24
I.
Severance of Action into Separate Cases
25
Generally, plaintiffs may join in one action if they assert any right to relief arising out
26
of the same occurrence or series of occurrences and if any question of law or fact in common
27
to all plaintiffs will arise in the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20. However, Rule 21 of the Federal
28
Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes the Court, on just terms, to sever claims or drop parties.
1
See Desert Empire Bank v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 623 F.2d 1371, 1375 (9th Cir. 1980) (even
2
if the specific requirements of Rule 20 may be satisfied, a trial court must examine other
3
relevant factors to determine if joinder of a party will comport with principles of fundamental
4
fairness).
5
Even if Plaintiffs in this action are properly joined, the Court has found that
6
management of pro se multi-plaintiff inmate litigation presents significant burdens to both
7
the parties and the Court. Plaintiffs are inmates proceeding pro se, and, although each
8
Plaintiff may appear on his own behalf, none may appear as an attorney for the other. Johns
9
v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 877 (9th Cir. 1997). Therefore, during the
10
prosecution of this action, each Plaintiff would be required to sign and submit his own
11
motions and notices related to his claims in the action, and all Plaintiffs would be required
12
to individually sign any motion or notice filed on behalf of all Plaintiffs. However, because
13
of security concerns related to inmate correspondence and face-to-face communications,
14
Plaintiffs would have, at best, very limited opportunities to discuss case strategy, share
15
discovery, or even provide each other copies of the motions and notices they file with the
16
Court. Accordingly, continued administration of the lawsuit by the inmates becomes
17
virtually impossible due to the regulation of inmate-to-inmate correspondence. Moreover,
18
inmates are subject to transfer to a different facility at any time or may be released.
19
With these concerns in mind, the Court concludes that unitary adjudication of
20
Plaintiffs’ claims would result in unfairness to Plaintiffs, Defendants, and the Court’s goals
21
of achieving judicial economy and maintaining efficient control of the Court’s docket.
22
Allowing each Plaintiff to proceed separately would overcome the unfairness created by
23
these circumstances. Therefore, the Court will sever this action into five individual cases and
24
a new case number will be assigned to each individual Plaintiff. A copy of the Complaint
25
(Doc. 1) and this Order will be placed in each new case.
26
The individual Plaintiffs must proceed independently from this point on and will not
27
be regarded as co-plaintiffs, except upon further order of the Court. All further pleadings,
28
-2-
1
motions or other papers submitted for filing by an individual Plaintiff in his separate case
2
must be signed by the individual Plaintiff, or they will be stricken.
3
II.
Motions
4
A.
Class Certification
5
Plaintiffs have filed a Motion for Class Certification. None of the Plaintiffs are
6
attorneys. Although each Plaintiff may appear on his own behalf, he may not appear as an
7
attorney for other persons in a class action. McShane v. United States, 366 F.2d 286, 288
8
(9th Cir. 1966) (nonlawyer had no authority to appear as an attorney for other persons in a
9
purported class action); C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th
10
Cir.1987) (while a non-attorney may represent himself, he has no authority to appear as an
11
attorney for others); Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975) (plain error
12
to permit an inmate proceeding pro se to represent fellow inmates in a class action). “This
13
rule is an outgrowth not only of the belief that a layman, untutored in the law, cannot
14
‘adequately represent’ the interests of the members of the ‘class,’ but also out of the long-
15
standing general prohibition against even attorneys acting as both class representative and
16
counsel for the class.” Huddleston v. Duckworth, 97 F.R.D. 512, 514 (N.D. Ind. 1983).
17
Further, Plaintiffs have not made a showing that the four prerequisites to a class action
18
under Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure i.e., numerosity, commonality,
19
typicality, and adequacy of representation, have been met in this case. The Court will
20
therefore deny the Motion for Class Certification.
21
B.
22
In their “Motion for Appointment of Expert Witness,” Plaintiffs request that the Court
23
appoint an expert witness to evaluate scientific evidence on the health effects of
24
environmental tobacco smoke and the concentration levels of environmental tobacco smoke
25
in the Yuma-Cheyenne prison. Plaintiffs’ request is essentially a request for discovery and
26
is therefore premature. Defendants have not yet been served or filed an answer and the Court
27
therefore cannot evaluate discovery requests at this early juncture. The Court will deny the
28
Expert Witness
-3-
1
Motion without prejudice.
2
C.
Appointment of Counsel
3
There is no constitutional right to the appointment of counsel in a civil case. See Ivey
4
v. Board of Regents of the University of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 269 (9th Cir. 1982). In
5
proceedings in forma pauperis, the court may request an attorney to represent any person
6
unable to afford one. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C.
7
§ 1915(e)(1) is required only when “exceptional circumstances” are present. Terrell v.
8
Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). A determination with respect to exceptional
9
circumstances requires an evaluation of the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the
10
ability of Plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issue
11
involved. Id. “Neither of these factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together
12
before reaching a decision.” Id. (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th
13
Cir. 1986)).
14
Having considered both elements, it does not appear at this time that exceptional
15
circumstances are present that would require the appointment of counsel in this case.
16
Plaintiffs are in no different position than many pro se prisoner litigants. The Court will
17
therefore deny without prejudice Plaintiffs’ Motion for Appointment of Counsel.
18
D.
19
Temporary restraining orders are governed by Rule 65(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
20
Procedure. The mailing certificate on Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order
21
does not indicate that the motion was served on Defendants. As a result, Plaintiffs appear
22
to seek a temporary restraining order without notice under Rule 65(b) of the Federal Rules
23
of Civil Procedure. The Court may not grant a temporary restraining order without notice
24
unless the applicant certifies to the court in writing the efforts, if any, which have been made
25
to give notice and the reasons that notice should not be required. Fed. R. Civ.P. 65(b).
26
Plaintiffs have not satisfied this requirement. No reason has been offered by Plaintiffs to
27
forgo notice to the adverse party. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining
28
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
-4-
1
order will be denied.
2
Even if Plaintiffs had met the procedural requirements for issuing a temporary
3
restraining order, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that injunctive relief is appropriate in this
4
case. Whether to grant or deny a motion for a temporary restraining order is within the
5
Court’s discretion. See Miss Universe, Inc. v. Flesher, 605 F.2d 1130, 1132-33 (9th Cir.
6
1979). “The standard for issuing a temporary restraining order is identical to the standard
7
for issuing a preliminary injunction.”
8
Corporation/Young Bros., Ltd. Salaried Pension Plan, 27 F. Supp. 2d 1225, 1228 (D. Haw.
9
1998). To obtain a preliminary injunction, the moving party must show “that he is likely to
10
succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of
11
preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in
12
the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 374
13
(2008).
14
Environmental Council of Sacramento v. Slater, 184 F. Supp. 2d 1016, 1027 (E.D. Cal.
15
2000).
Whitman v. Hawaiian Tug & Barge
The moving party has the burden of proof on each element of the test.
16
In this case, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated they are likely to succeed on the merits
17
nor have they demonstrated an immediate, irreparable harm as required to obtain injunctive
18
relief. The Court will deny the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary
19
Injunction.
20
III.
Warnings
21
A.
Address Changes
22
Plaintiffs must file and serve a notice of a change of address in accordance with Rule
23
83.3(d) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs must not include a motion for other
24
relief with a notice of change of address. Failure to comply may result in dismissal of their
25
action.
26
B.
27
Plaintiffs must submit an additional copy of every filing for use by the Court. See
28
Copies
-5-
1
LRCiv 5.4. Failure to comply may result in the filing being stricken without further notice
2
to Plaintiff.
3
IT IS ORDERED:
4
(1)
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Appoint Expert Witness (Doc. 2) is denied.
5
(2)
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (Doc. 3) is denied.
6
(3)
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order an Preliminary Injunction
7
(Doc. 4) is denied.
8
(4)
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 6) is denied.
9
(5)
This action is severed into 5 individual actions, one for each of the Plaintiffs:
10
Richard William Claxton, Ronald Dale Birdwell, Jimmy Mamoth, Wayne Prince, Jr., and
11
Thomas Placzek. The Clerk of Court must assign a new case number to each new individual
12
action.
13
(6)
The Clerk of Court must file a copy of the Complaint (Doc. 1) and this Order
14
in each new case.
15
(7)
The individual Plaintiffs must proceed separately from this point forward and
16
will not be regarded as co-plaintiffs, except upon further order of the Court. All further
17
pleadings, motions or other papers submitted for filing by an individual Plaintiff in his
18
separate case must be signed by the individual Plaintiff, or they will be stricken.
19
(8)
This action is dismissed without prejudice.
20
(9)
The Clerk of Court must close this case and enter judgment accordingly.
21
DATED this 24th day of June, 2011.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-6-
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?