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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?