Fitts et al v. Snyder et al

Filing 34

ORDER adopting 27 Report and Recommendation ; denying 4 Motion for Certification of Class Action. Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (MLan)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CAMERON FITTS, ET AL.,
Case No. 12-13575
Plaintiffs,
v.

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
ARTHUR J. TARNOW

RICK SNYDER, ET AL.,
MAGISTRATE JUDGE R. STEVEN WHALEN
Defendants.
/
ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION [27] AND DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
CERTIFICATION OF CLASS ACTION [4]
Before the Court is pro se Plaintiffs’ Motion for Certification of Class Action [4], filed
on August 13, 2012. On March 13, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation [27] recommending that the Court deny Plaintiffs’ Motion [4].
On August 13, 2012, Plaintiffs Cameron Lee Fitts, Michael Leon Davis, and Kenneth
Wilson filed a Complaint [1] under 42. U.S.C. § 1983, on behalf of themselves and all
similarly situated Michigan Department of Corrections inmates. Plaintiff’s instant Motion
[4] seeks to certify this class under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23.
The Report and Recommendation [27] recommends denying Plaintiffs’ Motion [4]
because it fails to meet the criteria of Rule 23(a)(4), which requires that the “representative
parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” As the Magistrate Judge
notes, it is established that while pro se plaintiffs without legal training may bring their own
claims, they cannot represent the interests of a class. See Howard v. Dougan, 2000 U.S. App.
LEXIS 15574, at *4 (6th Cir. June 23, 2000).

On March 27, 2013, Plaintiff Kenneth Wilson filed Objections [33] to the Report and
Recommendation [27]. Plaintiff Wilson makes three separate objections. Plaintiff Wilson’s
first objection states that the Michigan parole board has adopted rules and policies that are
in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act, Michigan law, and the “constitutional
provision of Due Process.”
Plaintiff Wilson’s second objection further details these alleged violations, listing
specific laws that are at issue. Plaintiff argues that the “Due Process Requirement was
violated through lack of notification about rule changes or amendments, and not allowing
prisoner participation in the parole process.” Within this second objection, Plaintiff also
asserts that the parole board “cannot apply current laws recently enacted, to sentences from
the 1970's and 1980's. The law must be from the time of sentencing...”
Plaintiff Wilson’s third and final objection argues that Defendants’ claim of qualified
immunity cannot stand because Defendants knowingly violated state regulations.
Plaintiff Wilson’s objections address Plaintiffs’ substantive claims. The objections do
not address the instant Motion for Certification of Class Action [4] and do not dispute the
findings within the Report and Recommendation.
Accordingly,
The Report and Recommendation [27] of the Magistrate Judge is hereby ADOPTED
and is entered as the findings and conclusions of the Court.
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Certification of Class [4] is DENIED.
If Plaintiffs Cameron Lee Fitts and Michael Leon Davis file further objections to the

2

Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [27] within the time limitations as noted
within the Report and Recommendation [27], the Court will reconsider this Order.
SO ORDERED.

s/Arthur J. Tarnow
ARTHUR J. TARNOW
SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: March 29, 2013

______________________________________________________________________________
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify on March 29, 2013 that I electronically filed the foregoing paper with the
Clerk of the Court sending notification of such filing to all counsel registered electronically. I hereby
certify that a copy of this paper was mailed to the following non-registered ECF participants on
March 29, 2013: Cameron Fitts, Michael Davis, Kenneth Wilson.
s/Michael E. Lang
Deputy Clerk to
District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow
[phone]

3