Brown v. Ryker et al

Filing 39

ORDER denying 35 Motion to Certify Class; Motion to Appoint Counsel; granting 36 Motion to Compel. Plaintiff shall respond to interrogatories and request to produce by 2/24/12. Granting 37 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 33 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Responses due by 3/30/2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams on 2/17/12. (amv)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JAMES BROWN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
LEE RYKER, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 10−cv–0937–MJR−SCW

ORDER
WILLIAMS, Magistrate Judge:
Three motions are before the Court in this Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement
case, which Plaintiff James Brown brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
First, Defendants have moved to compel discovery (Doc. 36). According to Defendants’
motion, Plaintiff Brown has failed to respond to Defendants’ interrogatories or requests for
production. In response, Brown argues that Defendants’ motion be time-barred and stricken, since
this case’s trial practice schedule dictated that discovery be completed by December 27, 2011 (See
Doc. 38). The Court will not permit Plaintiff to hide behind a deadline that he failed to meet;
Defendants’ motion to compel (Doc. 36) is GRANTED.

Mr. Brown SHALL respond to

Defendants’ interrogatories and requests for production ON OR BEFORE Friday, February 24.
Secondly, Plaintiff has moved for class certification.

His motion (Doc. 35) will be

DENIED. See Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975) (holding it would
be plain error to permit imprisoned pro se litigant to represent his fellow inmates in a class
action). The Federal Rules permit class actions to be maintained only if the class representative (in
this case the pro se Mr. Brown) “will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class, FED. R.
CIV. P. 23(a)(4), and “[e]very court that has considered the issue has held that a prisoner

proceeding pro se is inadequate to represent the interests of his fellow inmates in a class action.” Lee

v. Gardinez, 2012 WL 143612, n. 1 (S.D. Ill., Jan. 18, 2012) (quoting Craig v. Cohn, 80
F.Supp.2d 944, 946 (N.D. Ind. 2000) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted)).
Finally, Plaintiff has moved (at Doc. 37) for a month-long extension of time to file his
response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. That motion (Doc. 37) is GRANTED.
Plaintiff SHALL file his response brief on or before 3/30/2012. Plaintiff should note that, unless
exceptional circumstances require it, no more extensions will be granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: February 16, 2012

/s/ Stephen C. Williams
STEPHEN C. WILLIAMS
United States Magistrate Judge