Wells v. Shepard et al

Filing 29

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's pro se Motion 23 for class action certification and injunctive relief pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Honorable David C. Bramlette, III on June 6, 2014. (lda)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
WESTERN DIVISION
BARRY WELLS
VERSUS

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:14-cv-20-DCB-MTP

MARK SHEPARD, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

BEFORE the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion [23] for class action certification pursuant to
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff Barry Wells, a pretrial detainee
currently incarcerated at the Pike County Jail, filed a pro se conditions of confinement complaint
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 In the instant Motion, Plaintiff states that he is seeking “class
action injunctive relief for all inmates” based on “deliberate indifference to the medical care” of
pretrial detainees and state inmates at the Pike County Jail. Mot. [23] at 1. For the reasons set
forth below, Plaintiff’s Motion [23] will be denied.
A party seeking class action certification must demonstrate that he “will fairly and
adequately protect the interests of the class.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a)(4). Courts have routinely
found that prisoners proceeding pro se are inadequate to represent the interest of fellow inmates
in a class action. See Wallace v. Smith, 145 F. App’x. 300, 302 (11th Cir. 2005)(citations
omitted)(finding “plain error” for Court to permit a pro se prisoner to represent fellow inmates in
class action); Alexander v. New Jersey State Parole Bd., 160 F. App’x. 249, 250 n.1 (3rd Cir.
2005)(noting that “a prisoner may not seek relief on behalf of his fellow inmates”); Caputo v.
Fauver, 800 F.Supp. 168, 169-70 (D.N.J. 1992)(holding pro se prisoner cannot meet
requirements of Rule 23(a)(4)); see also Flymbo v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co, 213 F.3d 1320,

1

Plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis on April 9, 2014. See Order [14].

1321 (10th Cir. 2000)(non- attorneys proceeding pro se cannot adequately represent a class).
Furthermore, a district court has “wide discretion in deciding whether or not to certify a
proposed class.” McGrew v. Texas Bd. of Pardons and Paroles, 47 F.3d 158, 162 (5th Cir.
1995).
The Court has evaluated the instant Motion in accordance with the requirements of Rule
23. Plaintiff has failed to establish that class certification is warranted. Accordingly, it is
hereby,
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s pro se Motion [23] for class action certification and injunctive
relief is denied.
THIS, the 6th day of June, 2014.

S/David Bramlette
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2