Dickinson v. Acadia Parish Jail
MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 13 Motion to Join the Lawsuit. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carol B Whitehurst on 9/8/2021. (crt,Chicola, C)
Case 6:21-cv-01941-RRS-CBW Document 14 Filed 09/08/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 86
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
WILLIAM GLEN DICKINSON, JR. :
DOCKET NO. 6:21-CV-1941
: JUDGE ROBERT R. SUMMERHAYS
ACADIA PARISH JAIL, ET AL
: MAGISTRATE JUDGE WHITEHURST
Before the court is a Motion to Join the Lawsuit (rec. doc. 13), filed Acadia
Parish pre-trial prisoner, Aaron Saporito, who is requesting to join the present suit
filed by plaintiff Dickinson.
Plaintiff Dickinson filed the instant suit making several allegations, including
alleging that inmates are not allowed outdoor recreation, inmates are locked in their
cells for more than 12 hours per day, there is a shortage of mattresses, and the
mattresses and pillows are not disinfected prior to issuance to inmates, and that the
only book an inmate is allowed to receive in the mail is the Bible. Plaintiff states
that he wishes to file a class action against Acadia Parish, Louisiana, and seeks
damages in the amount of 100 million dollars.
Case 6:21-cv-01941-RRS-CBW Document 14 Filed 09/08/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 87
In his motion to join lawsuit, inmate Aaron Saporito stated that he wanted to
join the lawsuit because he was housed in Acadia Parish Jail under the “same
situations” as Dickinson. Rec. Doc. 13.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
A. Class Action
The pending motion to join the lawsuit, filed by an Acadia Parish pre-trial
detainee in an attempt to pursue a class action, should be denied. "[T]he class action
device exists primarily, if not solely, to achieve a measure of judicial economy,
which benefits the parties as well as the entire judicial system. It preserves the
resources of both the courts and the parties by permitting issues affecting all class
members to be litigated in an efficient, expedited, and manageable fashion." Allison
v. Citgo Petroleum Corp., 151 F.3d 402, 410 (5th Cir. 1998). To obtain class
certification under Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs
must satisfy the following requirements: "(1) numerosity (a 'class [so large] that
joinder of all members is impracticable'); (2) commonality ('questions of law or fact
common to the class'); (3) typicality (named parties' claims or defenses 'are typical
... of the class'); and (4) adequacy of representation (representatives 'will fairly and
adequately protect the interests of the class')." Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 117
S. Ct. 2231, 2245 (1997) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)). Additionally, Plaintiffs
must show that the action is maintainable pursuant to Rule 23(b)(1), (2) or (3). Id.
Case 6:21-cv-01941-RRS-CBW Document 14 Filed 09/08/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 88
Requests for class certification by a prisoner acting pro se are generally denied
because the prisoner cannot "fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class."
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4); Ali v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, No. 1:16CV-037, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30604, 2017 WL 881102, at (N.D. Tex. Feb. 2,
2017) (denying motion to certify class filed by an immigration detainee proceeding
pro se because he failed to show "he could fairly and adequately protect the interests
of a purported class of other [immigration] detainees"). Because Plaintiff has not
met the requirements for class certification and fails to show that he can properly
serve as a representative party in a class action, the undersigned denies the pending
motion to join the lawsuit. According,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Join the Lawsuit (rec. doc. 13) be
THUS DONE AND SIGNED in Chambers this 8th day of September, 2021.
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?