Wright et al v. Molloy et al

Filing 53

ORDER denying 3 Motion to Appoint Counsel; denying 4 Motion to Certify Class; denying without prejudice 5 Motion for TRO; denying without prejudice 5 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 9/23/2016. (Landman, M)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

IAN WRIGHT,
Plaintiff,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

v.
DANNEL P. MALLOY, et al,
Defendants.

NO. 3:16-cv-1179 (SRU)

RULING AND ORDER
Ian Wright has filed motions for class certification and appointment of class counsel. He
also seeks a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction. For the reasons that follow,
Wright’s motions are denied.
I.

Motion for Class Certification
Wright commenced this action by complaint signed by him and thirty-eight other

inmates. Only Wright submitted a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. When no other inmate
submitted a motion to proceed in forma pauperis after being notified of their obligation to do so,
the thirty-eight inmates were dismissed as plaintiffs. See Doc. #52.
Wright moves for class certification. Class certification is governed by Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Specifically, Rule 23(a) identifies four prerequisites which
must be met before a class action can be certified.
One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representatives
parties on behalf of all only if (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of
all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact
common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative
parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the
representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the
class.

The party seeking to certify a class bears the burden of demonstrating that the
requirements of Rule 23 have been met. See Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 17778 (1974). In addition, the Second Circuit has held that class certification is properly denied
where the prospective relief requested would benefit all members of the proposed class to the
extent that class certification would provide no additional benefit. See Davis v. Smith, 607 F.2d
535, 540 (2d Cir. 1978). For example, class certification would not be necessary in an action
seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against state officials on the ground that a statute or
administrative practice is unconstitutional. Correction of the practice would benefit all inmates,
not just the plaintiff. See Galvan v. Levine, 490 F.2d 1255, 1261 (2d Cir. 1973), cert. denied,
417 U.S. 936 (1974).
As a pro se litigant, Wright can only represent himself. He cannot adequately represent a
class of prisoners. See Nieblas-Love v. New York City Housing Auth., ___ F. Supp. 3d ____,
2016 WL 796845, at * 13 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 26, 2016) (denying motion for class certification
because pro se litigant cannot adequately represent class). Accordingly, the request for class
certification is denied. I also note that Wright seeks declaratory and injunctive relief challenging
a practice within the Department of Correction. Should he prevail in this action, any relief
afforded him would also be applied to other inmates in the same situation. Thus, class
certification is not warranted.
II.

Motion for Appointment of Class Counsel
Wright seeks appointment of class counsel in this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 23(g) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
Rule 23(g)(1) provides: “Unless a statute provides otherwise, a court that certifies a class
must appoint class counsel.” The criteria to be considered by the court show that the rule

contemplates appointment of class counsel from among the lawyers representing the members of
the class after the class is certified. Because the rule makes no provision for appointment of
counsel before a class is certified, Rule 23(g)(1) provides no authority for appointment of
counsel in this circumstance. See Ayazi v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 2010 WL 4789403, at *2
(E.D.N.Y. Nov. 17, 2010).
Section 1915(e)(1) is intended to guarantee that indigent litigants can meaningfully
access the courts. “[T]he purpose of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (1) . . . does not require appointing
counsel solely to permit plaintiff’s case to proceed in the form of a class action.” See Ayazi,
2010 WL 4789403, at *2. Because Wright filed this motion to obtain appointment of class
counsel, the motion for appointment of counsel is denied.
IV.

Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction
Wright’s motion for temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction is written in

general terms with no references to him or any actions taken against him. In his supporting
affidavit, Wright describes actions taken against him at Garner Correctional Institution.
“A prisoner’s transfer to a different correctional facility generally moots his request for
injunctive relief against employees of the transferor facility.” Thompson v. Carter, 284 F.3d
411, 415 (2d Cir. 2002); see also Thompson v. Choinski, 525 F.3d 205, 209 (2d Cir. 2008)
(affirming dismissal in federal habeas petition of inmate’s claim regarding conditions of
confinement because inmate had been transferred to different facility).
Wright challenges requirements that he participate in programs and provide a DNA
sample. Wright no longer is confined at Garner Correctional Institution. He has not been
confined at that facility since before he filed the complaint. Wright alleges no facts indicating
3

that the same conduct is occurring at his current facility. Although he recently filed an affidavit
in support of this motion, he references no conduct occurring at any other correctional facility.
Accordingly, Wright’s motion for temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction
is denied without prejudice. Wright may refile him motion if he encounters similar difficulties in
his current place of confinement.
V.

Conclusion
Wright’s motions for class certification [Doc. #4] and appointment of counsel [Doc. #3]

are DENIED. His motion for temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction [Doc. #5] is
DENIED without prejudice.
This case will proceed on Wright’s claims only. To facilitate the Court’s review of his
claims, Wright is directed to file an amended complaint listing only himself as plaintiff and
alleging facts relating to his claims and the defendants’ involvement in his claims.
SO ORDERED.
Dated this 23rd day of September 2016, at Bridgeport, Connecticut.

/s/STEFAN R. UNDERHILL
Stefan R. Underhill
United States District Judge

4