Hoke v. Lyle et al

Filing 56

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of the Magistrate Judge that the Court DENY Plaintiff's 49 MOTION to Certify Class. Any party seeking to object to this Report and Recommendation is ordered to file specific written objections within fourteen (14) days of the date on which this Report and Recommendation is entered. (Objections to R&R due by 2/18/2019). ORDER directing service of the REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of the Magistrate Judge. Signed by Magistrate Judge Benjamin W. Cheesbro on 2/4/2019. (csr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
STATESBORO DIVISION

STEPHEN RAY HOKE,
Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 6:16-cv-45

v.
MR. LYTE, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER AND MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification. Doc. 49.
For the reasons which follow, I RECOMMEND the Court DENY Plaintiff’s Motion.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed his initial 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Complaint on April 21, 2016, naming five
Defendants: Nathan Deal; Homer Bryson; Valient Lyte; Stanley Williams; and Tiffany Henry.
Doc. 1. Plaintiff claimed the named Defendants violated his rights under the Religious Land Use
and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1 et seq by preventing his
religious mail from coming into the prison. Id. Following the requisite frivolity review,
Plaintiff’s claims against Deal and Bryson were dismissed in their entirety and some, but not all,
of the claims against the remaining three Defendants were dismissed. Docs. 8, 14. Defendants
Lyte, Williams, and Henry moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint based on Plaintiff’s failure to
exhaust his available administrative remedies and failure to state a claim. Doc. 16. The Court

granted Defendants’ motion on both bases. Docs. 27, 29. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal.
Doc. 31.
On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals determined Plaintiff, who had not
previously amended his Complaint but had requested leave to do so prior to Defendants’ filing of
their motion to dismiss, had the right to amend as a matter of course. Doc. 36 at 4. The Eleventh
Circuit found this Court erred by not granting Plaintiff leave to amend as a matter of course,
vacated this Court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint, and remanded the case back to this Court.
Id. In addition to his Amended Complaint, doc. 48, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Class
Certification. Doc. 49.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, asserts there are more than 200 Christian inmates at
Georgia State Prison; thus, they all have the same claims as he has asserted against Defendants.
Id. at 1. Plaintiff contends these claims should not be hard to prove based on the facts he sets
forth in his Amended Complaint, and Defendants brag about sending religious mail back
“without notice.” Id.
“[I]t is plain error to permit [an] imprisoned litigant who is unassisted by counsel to
represent his fellow inmates in a class action.” See Wallace v. Smith, 145 F. App’x 300, 302
(11th Cir. 2005) (quoting Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975)); citing
Massimo v. Henderson, 468 F.2d 1209, 1210 (5th Cir. 1972) (affirming dismissal of the portion
of petitioner’s complaint seeking relief on behalf of fellow inmates). As the Fourth Circuit Court
of Appeals has observed:
An individual unquestionably has the right to litigate his own claims in federal
court, before both the district and appellate courts . . . The right to litigate for
oneself, however, does not create a coordinate right to litigate for others. See
Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975) (holding that a pro se

2

prisoner may not litigate the interests of other prisoners in class action). The
reasoning behind this rule is two-fold: it protects the rights of those before the
court, see id. (“the competence of a layman [litigating for] himself [is] clearly too
limited to allow him to risk the rights of others”), and jealously guards the
judiciary’s authority to govern those who practice in its courtrooms. See
Collinsgru v. Palmyra Bd. of Educ., 161 F.3d 225, 231 (3d Cir. 1998) (“Requiring
a minimum level of competence protects not only the [client] but also his or her
adversaries and the court from poorly drafted, inarticulate, and vexatious
claims.”).
Myers v. Loudoun Cty. Pub. Sch., 418 F.3d 395, 400 (4th Cir. 2005). Simply put, incarcerated
pro se litigants may not bring a class action on behalf of other prisoners. See Fymbo v. State
Fire & Cas. Co., 213 F.3d 1320, 1321 (10th Cir. 2002) (holding that a pro se litigant “cannot
adequately represent [a] putative class”); Ibarra v. GEO Grp., Inc., No. 5:16-CV-55, 2016 WL
7242575, at *3 (S.D. Ga. Nov. 3, 2016), report and recommendation adopted, No. 5:16-CV-55,
2016 WL 7242720 (S.D. Ga. Dec. 14, 2016); Walker v. Brown, No. CV 112-105, 2012 WL
4049438, at *1-2 (S.D. Ga. Aug. 14, 2012), report and recommendation adopted, No. CV 112105, 2012 WL 4052038 (S.D. Ga. Sept. 13, 2012). Even if Plaintiff met the Rule 23
requirements necessary for class certification, he cannot litigate the interests of other prisonerlitigants.

3

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, I RECOMMEND the Court DENY Plaintiff’s Motion for Class
Certification.
The Court ORDERS any party seeking to object to this Report and Recommendation to
file specific written objections within 14 days of the date on which this Report and
Recommendation is entered. Any objections asserting that the Magistrate Judge failed to address
any contention raised in the Complaint must also be included. Failure to do so will bar any later
challenge or review of the factual findings or legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). A copy of the objections must be
served upon all other parties to the action.
Upon receipt of Objections meeting the specificity requirement set out above, a United
States District Judge will make a de novo determination of those portions of the report, proposed
findings, or recommendation to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify in
whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. Objections not
meeting the specificity requirement set out above will not be considered by a District Judge. A
party may not appeal a Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation directly to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Appeals may be made only from a final judgment
entered by or at the direction of a District Judge.

4

The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to serve a copy of this Report and
Recommendation upon the parties.
SO ORDERED and REPORTED and RECOMMENDED, this 4th day of February,
2019.

____________________________________
BENJAMIN W. CHEESBRO
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

5