Honesto v. Schwartzenegger et al

Filing 13

ORDER DENYING 12 Plaintiff's Motion for Joinder and/or Class Certification signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 5/23/2011. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 PEDRO HONESTO, 11 Plaintiff, 1:10-cv-01177-GBC (PC) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR JOINDER AND/OR CLASS CERTIFICATION v. 12 13 CASE NO. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, (ECF No. 12) 14 Defendants. / 15 16 ORDER 17 18 19 I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiff Pedro Honesto (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 20 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this 21 22 23 24 25 26 action on June 22, 2010 and consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction on July 29, 2010. (ECF Nos. 1 & 9.) Plaintiff’s Complaint has yet to be screened by the Court. Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for miscellaneous relief. (ECF No. 12.) Plaintiff requests class certification, joinder, service of his complaint, and injunctive relief. Each of these will be address in turn below. 27 1 1 CLASS ACTION 2 Plaintiff seeks certification of this litigation as a class action. Plaintiff states that 3 other similarly situated inmates should be included in his action. He states that the claims 4 5 6 involve questions or law or fact common and that he will fairly and adequate protect the interests of the class. 7 Plaintiff, however, is a non-lawyer proceeding without counsel. It is well established 8 that a layperson cannot ordinarily represent the interests of a class. See McShane v. 9 United States, 366 F.2d 286 (9th Cir. 1966). This rule becomes almost absolute when, as 10 here, the putative class representative is incarcerated and proceeding pro se. Oxendine 11 12 v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975). In direct terms, plaintiff cannot “fairly and 13 adequately protect the interests of the class” as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). See 14 Martin v. Middendorf, 420 F. Supp. 779 (D.D.C. 1976). This action, therefore, will not be 15 construed as a class action and instead will be construed as an individual civil suit brought 16 by Plaintiff. 17 JOINDER 18 19 20 Plaintiff also seeks joinder. Again, Plaintiff states that the claims involve the same questions of law or fact. 21 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a), persons may be joined in one 22 action as defendants if any right to relief asserted against them arises out of the same 23 transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions and occurrences, and any question of law 24 or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action. See also George v. Smith, 507 25 26 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (“Unrelated claims against unrelated defendants belong in 27 2 1 different suits”). 2 3 Plaintiff does not specify what Defendants he would like joined, nor does he specify what claims he is referring to. Thus, this request is denied. 4 The Court also notes that at this stage in the proceedings, Plaintiff is allowed to 5 6 amend his complaint. If Plaintiff believes that he mistakenly named a defendant or failed 7 to name an individual as a defendant, he is free to file an amended complaint, keeping in 8 mind that an amended complaint supercedes the original. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 9 57 (9th Cir. 1967). 10 SERVICE 11 Plaintiff also seeks to have the Defendants served. The Court is required to screen 12 13 complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or 14 employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a 15 complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally “frivolous or 16 malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 17 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 18 19 1915A(b)(1),(2). 20 With respect to service, the Court will, sua sponte, direct the United States Marshal 21 to serve the Complaint only after the Court has screened the Complaint and determined 22 that it contains cognizable claims for relief against the named Defendants. As the Court 23 has yet to screen Plaintiff’s case, his request for service is premature and unnecessary. 24 As the Court has a significant number of prisoner civil rights cases pending before it, it will 25 screen Plaintiff’s complaint in due course. 26 27 /// 3 1 INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 2 Finally, Plaintiff also seeks injunctive relief. Plaintiff repeatedly states that joinder 3 or class certification is necessary to foreclose officials from inflicting irreparable harm. 4 5 Injunctive relief, whether temporary or permanent, is an “extraordinary remedy, 6 never awarded as of right.” Winter v. Natural Res. Defense Council, 129 S.Ct. 365, 376 7 (2008). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to 8 succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of 9 preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in 10 the public interest.” Am. Trucking Ass’ns, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 11 12 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Winter, 129 S.Ct. at 374). The standard for a permanent injunction 13 is essentially the same as for a preliminary injunction, with the exception that the plaintiff 14 must show actual success, rather than a likelihood of success. See Amoco Prod. Co. v. 15 Village of Gambell, 480 U.S. 531, 546 n. 12 (1987). However, the Ninth Circuit has 16 recently revived the “serious questions” sliding scale test, and ruled that a preliminary 17 injunction may be appropriate when a plaintiff demonstrates serious questions going to the 18 19 20 merits and the balance of hardships tips sharply in plaintiff’s favor. Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 622 F.3d 1045, 1052-53 (9th Cir. 2010). 21 In cases brought by prisoners involving conditions of confinement, the Prison Relief 22 Reform Act (PLRA) requires that any preliminary injunction “must be narrowly drawn, 23 extend no further than necessary to correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary 24 relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct the harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 25 3626(a)(2). Moreover, where, “a plaintiff seeks a mandatory preliminary injunction that 26 27 goes beyond maintaining the status quo pendente lite, ‘courts should be extremely 4 1 cautious’ about issuing a preliminary injunction and should not grant such relief unless the 2 facts and law clearly favor the plaintiff.” Committee of Central American Refugees v. 3 I.N.S., 795 F.2d 1434, 1441 (9th Cir. 1986) (quoting Martin v. International Olympic 4 5 Committee, 740 F.2d 670, 675 (9th Cir. 1984)). 6 The Court finds that Plaintiff has not established that he is likely to succeed on the 7 merits in this case, has failed to show that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the 8 absence of an injunction, and does not address the balance of equities or the public 9 interest, all of which are prerequisites to the issuance of an injunction. Overall, the Court 10 finds that Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden with respect to the issuance of an 11 12 13 injunction. II. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 14 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 15 1. Plaintiff’s request for class certification is DENIED; 16 2. Plaintiff’s request for joinder is DENIED; 3. Plaintiff’s request for service is DENIED; and 4. Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief is DENIED. 17 18 19 20 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 1j0bbc May 23, 2011 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 5

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?