Owens v. Shah et al

Filing 90

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification (Doc. 13 ). Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 2/10/2017. (tfs)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS TYRONE OWENS, B09385, Plaintiff, vs. VIPIN SHAH, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 3:15-cv-01140-SMY-RJD ORDER YANDLE, District Judge: Before the Court is Plaintiff Tyrone Owens’ Motion for Class Certification. (Doc. 13). Plaintiff filed this prisoner civil rights action pro se alleging that the Illinois Department of Corrections and its employees have violated his Eighth Amendment rights by serving meals that contain too much soy. Owens states that his health and the health of other inmates has been negatively affected by the soy. “In all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel [.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1654. This means that pro se litigants may not represent other parties. See Lewis v. Lenc-Smith Mfg. Co., 784 F.2d 829, 830 (7th Cir. 1986). Additionally, pro se litigants are not permitted to be class representatives. Howard v. Pollard, 814 F.3d 476, 477 (7th Cir. 2015). Because Owens is currently proceeding pro se, he is ineligible to be a class representative in his soy diet litigation. Accordingly, Owens’ motion for class certification is DENIED without prejudice. Moving forward, Owens is of course free to litigate this action and pursue his own interests. Should Owens retain counsel to represent him, his attorney (s) may seek class certification should they choose to do so. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: February 10, 2017 s/ Staci M. Yandle Staci M. Yandle UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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?