(PC) Benoite v. Doerer et al

Filing 13

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATION to Deny Plaintiff's 10 Motion to Certify a Class, signed by Magistrate Judge Helena M. Barch-Kuchta on 3/10/2025. Objections to F&R due within FOURTEEN DAYS. (Deputy Clerk CRM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

SHELTON BENOITE,

13

Plaintiff,

14

v.

15

J. DOERER, et al.,

16

Case No. 1:24-cv-01407-KES-HBK (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO
DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CERTIFY
A CLASS1
(Doc. No. 10)

Defendants.

17
Plaintiff, a federal prisoner incarcerated at United States Penitentiary, Atwater, proceeds

18
19

pro se in this civil action. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for class certification

20

filed on February 12, 2025. (Doc. No. 10, “Motion”). The undersigned recommends the district

21

court deny the Motion.

22

Plaintiff proceeds on his pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown

23

Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics2 and the Federal Torts Claim Act (“FTCA”).

24

(Doc. No. 1, “complaint”). Plaintiff complains that during a 60-day lockdown he was deprived of

25

meals, clothing, personal property, shower, recreation time, medical treatment, social contact,

26
27
28

1

This matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302
(E.D. Cal. 2023).
2
403 U.S. 388 (1971).

1

commissary, care packages, radio, reading material, table, television., legal property, and other

2

necessities. (See generally Doc. No. 1). In his Motion, which consists of a single page, Plaintiff

3

asserts “there are at least 27 Plaintiffs that filed substantially the same claims in this Court and the

4

class extends to approximately one thousand people.” (Doc. No. 10 at 1).

5

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) governors whether a case can proceed as a class

6

action. The prerequisites to maintenance of a class action are that (1) the class is so numerous

7

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

8

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

9

the representative party will fairly and adequately protect the class interests. Fed. R. Civ. P.

10

23(a).

11

Plaintiff is a non-lawyer proceeding without counsel. It is well established that a

12

layperson cannot ordinarily represent the interests of a class. See McShane v. United States, 366

13

F.2d 286 (9th Cir. 1966); C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th

14

Cir.1987); see also Russell v. United States, 308 F.2d 78, 79 (9th Cir. 1962) (holding “a litigant

15

appearing in propria persona has no authority to represent anyone other than himself”). Indeed,

16

“[i]t is plain error to permit [an] imprisoned litigant who is unassisted by counsel to represent his

17

fellow inmates in a class action.” Wallace v. Smith, 145 F. App'x 300, 302 (11th Cir. 2005) (per

18

curiam) (quoting Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975)). Therefore,

19

Plaintiff’s Motion for class certification must be denied.

20

Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED:

21

Plaintiff’s motion for class certification (Doc. No. 10) be DENIED.

22

NOTICE TO PARTIES

23

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District

24

Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days

25

after being served with a copy of these Findings and Recommendations, a party may file written

26

objections with the Court. Id.; Local Rule 304(b). The document should be captioned,

27

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations” and shall not exceed fifteen

28

(15) pages. The Court will not consider exhibits attached to the Objections. To the extent a party
2

1

wishes to refer to any exhibit(s), the party should reference the exhibit in the record by its

2

CM/ECF document and page number, when possible, or otherwise reference the exhibit with

3

specificity. Any pages filed in excess of the fifteen (15) page limitation may be disregarded by

4

the District Judge when reviewing these Findings and Recommendations under 28 U.S.C. §

5

636(b)(l)(C). A party’s failure to file any objections within the specified time may result in the

6

waiver of certain rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014).

7
8
9

Dated:

March 10, 2025
HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3