Gilman v. Fisher, et al

Filing 387

ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 12/5/2011 DENYING 386 Joinder filed by Karimi Sutton. (cc: Karimi Sutton) (Michel, G)

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
Plaintiffs,

11
v.

12

O R D E R
13

EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., 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 Karimi Sutton, a prisoner proceeding pro se. In essence,

3

this prisoner argues that he should be considered a class member

4

and

5

preliminary injunction to include him. He does not contend that he

6

is not adequately represented in the Gilman class action.

7

requests

that

this

court

extend

its

February

4,

2010

This court has determined that permissive joinder is not

8

warranted.

In

9

multiple inmate plaintiffs proceeding pro se presents procedural

10

problems that cause delay and confusion. Delay often arises from

11

the

12

institutions, the changes in address that occur when inmates are

13

released to parole, and the difficulties faced by inmates who

14

attempt to communicate with each other and with unincarcerated

15

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

16

not adequately representing the interests of the class.

frequent

this

court's

transfer

of

experience,

inmates

to

an

action

other

brought

facilities

by

or

17

The court advises Karimi Sutton that if he is a member of the

18

Gilman class action for equitable relief from prison conditions

19

that he may not maintain a separate, individual suit for equitable

20

relief involving the same subject matter of the class action. See

21

Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 892-93 (9th Cir. 1979); see also

22

McNeil

23

(“Individual suits for injunctive and equitable relief from alleged

24

unconstitutional prison conditions cannot be brought where there

25

is an existing class action.”); Gillespie v. Crawford, 858 F.2d

26

1101, 1103 (5th Cir. 1988) (per curiam) (“To allow individual suits

v.

Guthrie,

945

F.2d

1163,

2

1165

(10th

Cir.

1991)

1

would interfere with the orderly administration of the class action

2

and risk inconsistent adjudications.”).

3

For the foregoing reasons, the court ORDERS as follows:

4

(1)

5
6

The motion for permissive joinder, ECF No. 386, is
DENIED.

(2)

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

7

order upon Karimi Sutton at the address listed in his

8

motion.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

DATED:

December 5, 2011.

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