Hughes v. City of Mariposa et al

Filing 24

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 15 Motion for Certification as Class Action signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 2/17/2010. (Sant Agata, S)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 BERNARD C. HUGHES, 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 CITY OF MARIPOSA, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 / 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff Bernard C. Hughes ("Plaintiff") filed this action on December 29, 2009. Plaintiff seeks certification of this litigation as a class action. Plaintiff, however, is a non-lawyer proceeding without counsel. It is well established that a layperson cannot ordinarily represent the interests of a class. See McShane v. United States, 366 F.2d 286 (9th Cir. 1966). This rule becomes almost absolute when, as here, the putative class representative is incarcerated and proceeding pro se. Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975). In direct terms, plaintiff cannot "fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class" as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). See Martin v. Middendorf, 420 F. Supp. 779 (D.D.C. 1976). Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for certification of this litigation as a class action is DENIED . IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 6i0kij ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION AS CLASS ACTION (Doc. 15.) 1:09-cv-02249-GSA-PC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

February 17, 2010

/s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE