Alfonso Hall v. Smith et al

Filing 18

ORDER denying 17 Motion for Class Certification and Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 5/31/2016. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ALFONSO HALL,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Plaintiff,

12
v.

13
14

Case No. 1:15-cv-00860-BAM-PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO APPOINT COUNSEL

D. SMITH, et al.,
Defendants.

15

(ECF NO. 17)

16
17
18

Plaintiff Alfonso Hall is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

On May 27, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to certify this action as a class action. This
action proceeds on Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Smith for excessive force and failure to
decontaminate in violation of the Eighth Amendment. In his motion, Plaintiff seeks to bring this
action on behalf of “the inmates at the California Correctional Institution and those who may in
the future be housed there.” (ECF No. 17 at 1:15.)

Plaintiff also seeks the appointment of

counsel to represent the class.
I.

Class Certification
Plaintiff is not an attorney and he is proceeding without counsel. A pro se litigant simply

cannot “fairly and adequately protect the interest of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4); Fymbo

28

1

1 v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 213 F.3d 1320, 1321 (10th Cir. 2000). While a non-attorney
2 proceeding pro se may bring his own claims to court, he may not represent others. E.g., Simon
3 v. Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 644-65 (9th Cir. 2008); Fymbo, 213 F.3d at 1321; Johns v.
4 County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1997); C. E. Pope Equity Trust v. United
5 States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987). Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for class certification
6 must be denied.
7 II.

Appointment of Counsel

8

Plaintiff seeks the appointment of class counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

9 Procedure 23(g). This action proceeds against Defendant Correctional Officer Smith for an
10 incident of excess force and failure to decontaminate Plaintiff on May 20, 2014. Plaintiff does
11 not identify any other inmates involved in the use of force. This action does not involve
12 allegations or claims that would ordinarily be eligible for class certification pursuant to Federal
13 Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a). Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of class counsel should
14 therefore be denied.
15

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to certify this case as a

16 class action and motion for the appointment of class counsel is DENIED.
17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

May 31, 2016

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2