Jordan et al v. Gladieux et al

Filing 61

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING, WITH LEAVE TO REFILE, 31 MOTION to Certify Class filed by Rolando Jordan, Kenneth RollingCloud, Ronald Ward. Signed by Chief Judge Theresa L Springmann on 12/5/17. (kjp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
ROLANDO JORDAN, RONALD WARD,
and KENNETH ROLLINGCLOUD,
individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DAVID GLADIEUX, ALAN COOK, and
CHARLES HART,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO.: 1:16-CV-335-TLS

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Rolando Jordan, Ronald Ward, and
Kenneth Rollingcloud’s First Amended Motion for Class Certification [ECF No. 31]. Defendants
Charles Hart, Alan Cook, and Allen County Sheriff David Gladieux objected to class
certification and filed a Response to Motion for Class Certification [ECF No. 43]. The Plaintiffs
timely filed their Reply [ECF No. 47]. This matter is thus fully briefed and ripe for review.

BACKGROUND
This background is provided through the pleadings, class certification motions, and
attached exhibits. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants have substantially burdened Muslim
and Native American inmates’ exercise of religion in the Allen County Jail. (First Am. Class
Action Compl., ECF No. 30, at ¶ 1.) Plaintiff Rolando Jordan is Muslim and was an inmate in
Allen County Jail from January 2016 through August 2016. (Id. at ¶ 6.a.) Plaintiff Ronald Ward
is also Muslim and was an inmate at the Allen County Jail when the Plaintiffs moved to certify

the class. (Id. at ¶ 6.b.) Plaintiff Kenneth Rollingcloud is a Native American, practices a
traditional Native American faith, and was an inmate at the Allen County Jail when the Plaintiffs
moved to certify the class. (Id. at ¶ 6.c.) Defendant David Gladieux is the Allen County Sheriff
and operates the Allen County Jail. (Id. at ¶ 7.) Defendant Alan Cook is the current Commander
of the Allen County Jail, and Charles Hart is a former Commander of the Allen County Jail. (Id.
at ¶ 8.)
Broadly, the Plaintiffs assert that Muslim and Native American inmates at the Allen
County Jail are forbidden from gathering for weekly communal worship, but Protestant Christian
inmates are permitted to do so. (First Am. Class Action Compl. at ¶ 16.) Additionally, the
Plaintiffs contend that both Muslim and Native American inmates are forbidden from possessing
articles of religious devotion, such as prayer rugs and religious head coverings for Muslim
inmates, and medicine bags and religious headdress for Native American inmates. (Id. at ¶ 24.)
The Plaintiffs brought their claims on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated as
members of the following proposed class:
All individuals held at the Allen County Jail between October 2014 and September
2016 practicing a Muslim or traditional Native American faith who have been
forbidden from engaging in Muslim or traditional Native American communal
worship and/or have been forbidden from keeping an article of Muslim or
traditional Native American religious devotion.
(First Am. Motion for Class Cert. at 3.)

LEGAL STANDARD
“Rule 23 does not set forth a mere pleading standard.” Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes,
564 U.S. 338, 351 (2011). Instead, plaintiffs bear the burden to show that a proposed class
satisfies Rule 23. Arwa Chiropractice, P.C. v. Med-Care Diabetic & Med. Supplies, Inc., No. 14-

2

C-5602, 2017 WL 4339788, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 29, 2017) (citing Messner v. Northshore Univ.
Healthsys., 669 F.3d 802, 811 (7th Cir. 2012)). A plaintiff satisfies Rule 23 when he meets all of
the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and one of the requirements of Rule
23(b). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23; Rosario v. Livaditis, 963 F.2d 1013, 1017 (7th Cir. 1992). First, the
plaintiff must show:
(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.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1)–(4); Kress v. CCA of Tenn., LLC, 694 F.3d 890, 892–93 (7th Cir. 2012).
If a plaintiff meets these four prerequisites, the plaintiff then must also satisfy one of the
subsections of Rule 23(b). Here, the Plaintiffs aim to satisfy Rule 23(b)(3), which is satisfied if:
(3) the court finds that the questions of law or fact common to class members
predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class
action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating
the controversy. The matters pertinent to these findings include:
(A) the class members’ interests in individually controlling the
prosecution or defense of separate actions;
(B) the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the
controversy already begun by or against class members;
(C) the desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of the
claims in the particular forum; and
(D) the likely difficulties in managing a class action.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3); Harper v. Sheriff of Cook Cty., 581 F.3d 511, 513 (7th Cir. 2009).

3

In deciding whether Rule 23 has been satisfied, the district court undertakes “a rigorous
analysis” by making the necessary factual and legal inquiries. Dukes, 564 U.S. at 350; Szabo v.
Bridgeport Machs., Inc., 249 F.3d 672, 676 (7th Cir. 2001). This analysis may require some
overlap with the merits of the Plaintiffs’ underlying claim. Dukes, 564 U.S. at 351.

ANALYSIS
The Plaintiffs brought their claims on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated as members of the following proposed class:
All individuals held at the Allen County Jail between October 2014 and September
2016 practicing a Muslim or traditional Native American faith who have been
forbidden from engaging in Muslim or traditional Native American communal
worship and/or have been forbidden from keeping an article of Muslim or
traditional Native American religious devotion.
(First Am. Motion for Class Cert. at 3.) To certify the class, the Plaintiff must first satisfy the
four familiar Rule 23(a) requirements: numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1)–(4). The Defendants oppose class certification on two grounds. First, they
contend that the Plaintiff’s proposed class is not identifiable. (Resp. to Mot. for Class Cert. at 4–
5.) Second, the Defendants assert that the Plaintiffs failed to satisfy the numerosity requirement
of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 23. (Id. at 5–6.) The Court agrees that the Plaintiffs have
not satisfied Rule 23.

A.

Ascertainability
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 contains an implicit “ascertainability” requirement

that class membership be clearly defined by objective criteria. Mullins v. Direct Digital, LLC,
795 F.3d 654, 657 (7th Cir. 2015). A plaintiff seeking class certification must “identif[y] a

4

particular group of individuals . . . harmed in a particular way . . . during a specific period in
particular areas.” Id. at 660–61. She need not develop “a reliable and administratively feasible
way to determine whether a particular person is a class member” to satisfy Rule 23’s implicit
ascertainability requirement. Beley v. City of Chi., No. 12-C-9714, 2015 WL 8153377, at *3
(N.D. Ill. Dec. 7, 2015) (citing Mullins, 795 F.3d at 657–58, 663–65, 672).
While the Court suspects that the Plaintiffs have identified a particular group of
individuals harmed in a particular way during a specific period in particular areas, the Court
withholds this determination given numerosity concerns discussed below.

B.

Numerosity
Rule 23(a)(1) requires a class to be “so numerous that joinder of all members is

impracticable.” As with the other Rule 23 requirements, a plaintiff has the burden of proving that
the class is so numerous that joinder is impracticable. Valentino v. Howlett, 528 F.2d 975, 978
(7th Cir. 1976). While an exact number is not required, a class with more than forty members
will generally satisfy the numerosity requirement. Pruitt v. City of Chi., 472 F.3d 925, 926–27
(7th Cir. 2006). Further, a conclusory allegation that a class is so numerous to make joinder
impractical does not satisfy Rule 23(a)(3). Valentino, 528 F.2d at 978.
In this case, the Plaintiffs allege that “[s]ince October 2014, dozens of jail inmates who
are members of Muslim or Native American faith traditions have been denied the ability to
participate in regular group worship and/or keep articles of religious devotion.” (First Am. Class
Action Compl. at ¶ 10.) The Plaintiffs also included grievance forms from inmates who have not
been able to exercise their religious liberty as desired. (See id. at Ex. B–D, F–K.) The three
named plaintiffs and two additional inmates filed the grievance forms. (See id.) Evidence that

5

shows five inmates have allegedly been denied the ability to participate in regular group worship
and/or keep articles of religious devotion, combined with the conclusory allegation in the
complaint that dozens of inmates have been denied the ability to participate in regular group
worship and/or keep articles of religious devotion, does not satisfy Rule 23(a)(1).
Perhaps the Plaintiffs will uncover additional class members through discovery, but at
present, the Plaintiffs have not submitted sufficient evidence to show that the class is so
numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court DENIES, WITH LEAVE TO REFILE, the Plaintiff’s First
Amended Motion for Class Certification [ECF No. 31].
SO ORDERED on December 5, 2017.
s/ Theresa L. Springmann
CHIEF JUDGE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6