Jenkins et al v. Davis et al

Filing 4

ORDER Denying Plaintiff to Proceed as a Class Action Suit signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 12/02/2013. T. Driver, R. Griffin, R. Hernandez, E. Madrid, R. Massey, D. Taschler, D. Wenburg, M. Crudup and M. Dorado terminated from action. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

HAROLD JENKINS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
RON DAVIS, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

Plaintiff Harold Jenkins is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

17
18
19

) Case No.: 1:13-cv-01805-LJO-SAB (PC)
)
)
) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF TO
PROCEED AS A CLASS ACTION SUIT
)
)
)
)
)
)

1983.
Plaintiff has attempted to file this complaint on behalf of multiple plaintiffs, as the caption of

20

the complaint indicates “INMATES OF VALLEY STATE PRISON FOR MEN,” as Plaintiffs, and an

21

attachment to the complaint identifies 25 additional individuals as Plaintiffs the complaint identifies

22

25 additional plaintiffs. Thus, Plaintiff is seeking to bring a class action.

23

The prerequisites to maintain a class action are as follows: (1) the class is so numerous that

24

joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there are common questions of law and fact, (3) the

25

representative party’s claims or defenses are typical of the class claims or defenses, and (4) the

26

representative party will fairly and adequately protect the class interests. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a).

27

Pro se prisoner plaintiffs are not adequate class representatives able to fairly represent and adequately

28

protect the interests of the class. Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975); see also
1

1

Russell v. United States, 308 F.2d 78, 79 (9th Cir. 1962) (“a litigant appearing in propria persona has

2

no authority to represent anyone other than himself”), so class certification may be denied on that

3

basis, see Griffin v. Smith, 493 F.Supp. 129, 131 (W.D.N.Y. 1980) (denying class certification on

4

basis that pro se prisoner cannot adequately represent class).
In this instance, all of the plaintiffs are pro se prisoners. Therefore, this action cannot proceed

5
6

as a class action. Accordingly, all unnamed plaintiffs are DISMISSED as plaintiffs from this action

7

without prejudice to file separate individual actions. Only the lead plaintiff, Harold Jenkins, may

8

proceed with this action. Accordingly, this action will proceed solely as an individual action brought

9

by Plaintiff Harold Jenkins.

10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14
15

Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

December 2, 2013

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DEAC_Signature-END:

b9ed48bb

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2