Gilman v. Fisher, et al

Filing 361

ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 8/16/2011 ORDERING 360 The motion for permissive joinder, is DENIED; and The Clerk of Court is instructed to serve a copy of this order upon Darrel King and Timothy Leang Jones at the address listed in his motion. (cc: USPS, D.King and T.L.Jones @ KVSP) (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
RICHARD M. GILMAN, et al.,
10
NO. CIV. S-05-830 LKK/GGH
11

Plaintiffs,

12

v.
O R D E R

13

EDMUND J. BROWN, et al.,

14
Defendants.
15

/

16

The above captioned case is a class action concerning numerous

17

constitutional challenges to California’s parole system. The class

18

is defined as California state prisoners who: (i) have been

19

sentenced to a term that includes life; (ii) are serving sentences

20

that include the possibility of parole; (iii) are eligible for

21

parole; and (iv) have been denied parole on one or more occasions.

22

Gilman v. Davis, No. Civ. S-05-0830 LKK GGH, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

23

21614 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2009), aff'd 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 11319

24

(9th Cir. June 3, 2010).

25

counsel. Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief.

26

////

The plaintiff class is represented by

1

1

Currently before this court is a motion for permissive joinder

2

filed by Darrel King and Timothy Leang Jones, prisoners proceeding

3

pro se. In essence, these prisoners argue that they should be

4

considered class members. They do not contend that they are not

5

adequately represented in the Gilman class action.

6

This court has determined that permissive joinder is not

7

warranted.

In

8

multiple inmate plaintiffs proceeding pro se presents procedural

9

problems that cause delay and confusion. Delay often arises from
frequent

this

court's

transfer

of

experience,

inmates

to

an

action

other

brought

facilities

by

10

the

or

11

institutions, the changes in address that occur when inmates are

12

released to parole, and the difficulties faced by inmates who

13

attempt to communicate with each other and with unincarcerated

14

individuals. Further, there is no indication that class counsel is

15

not adequately representing the interests of the class.

16

The court advises Darrel King and Timothy Leang Jones that if

17

they are members of the Gilman class action for equitable relief

18

from prison conditions that they may not maintain a separate,

19

individual suit for equitable relief involving the same subject

20

matter of the class action. See Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890,

21

892-93 (9th Cir. 1979); see also McNeil v. Guthrie, 945 F.2d 1163,

22

1165

23

equitable relief from alleged unconstitutional prison conditions

24

cannot be brought where there is an existing class action.”);

25

Gillespie v. Crawford, 858 F.2d 1101, 1103 (5th Cir. 1988) (per

26

curiam) (“To allow individual suits would interfere with the

(10th

Cir.

1991)

(“Individual

2

suits

for

injunctive

and

1

orderly administration of the class action and risk inconsistent

2

adjudications.”).

3

For the foregoing reasons, the court ORDERS as follows:

4

(1)

5
6

The motion for permissive joinder, ECF No. 360, is
DENIED.

(2)

The Clerk of Court is instructed to serve a copy of this

7

order upon Darrel King and Timothy Leang Jones at the

8

address listed in his motion.

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:

August 16, 2011.

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