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)

Download PDF
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?