Richard v. Illinois Department of Corrections et al

Filing 36

ORDER DENYING 15 Motion to Certify Class. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson on 10/18/2016. (nms)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PRINCE RICHARD,
Plaintiff,
v.
C. GLADYSE TAYLOR, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:16-cv-69-NJR-DGW

ORDER
WILKERSON, Magistrate Judge:
Now pending before the Court is the Motion for Certification of Class filed by Plaintiff,
Prince Richard (Doc. 15). For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is DENIED.
In his motion for certification of class, Plaintiff complains that officials at Menard
Correctional Center (“Menard”) have placed bunk beds in a number of single cells without
providing a ladder for him and other inmates to access the upper bunks. Plaintiff asserts that he
and other inmates have hurt themselves while attempting to climb into their bunks. Plaintiff asks
the Court to certify as a class those inmates who are similarly situated to him and suffered injury
due to the failure of Menard to provide ladders for upper bunks.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) prescribes that one or members of a class may sue as
representative parties on behalf of all members 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. In
this instance, despite asserting that “the number of inmates … is so numerous” that “joinder of all
Page 1 of 2

class members is impracticable”, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the requirements of Rule
23(a). More specifically, Plaintiff’s motion is devoid of any evidence that his claims are typical
of the claims of the class or that Plaintiff would fairly and adequately protect the interests of the
class. Moreover, Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently demonstrate that the class is so numerous that
joinder is impracticable as it is unclear how many individuals are similarly situated. As Plaintiff
has failed to support the requirements of Rule 23(a), his Motion for Certification of Class (Doc.
15) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 18, 2016

DONALD G. WILKERSON
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 2 of 2