Williams v. Jones et al

Filing 17

OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Ronald A. White : DENYING (Docket No. 3 ) Motion for Appointment of Counsel and DENYING (Docket No. 5 ) Motion to Certify Class. Plaintiff directed to file proper amended complaint within 14 days. All other pending motions (RE: Docket No. 4 ) and Docket No. 16 ) DENIED with leave to re-urge after amneded complaint is filed. (neh, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERNDISTRICTOFOKLAHOMA

FILED

MARIO WILLIAMS, et al.,
Plaintiff,
v.

JUSTIN JONES, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

JAN 2 2 2013
WILLIAM B. GUTHRIE
Clerk, U.S. District Court

By_~=-........--­

Deputy ciei'k

No. CIV 12-423-RAW-SPS

OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections (DOC)
who is incarcerated at Davis Correctional Facility (DCF) in Holdenville, Oklahoma, has filed
this purported class action civil rights complaint, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking class
certification, as well as monetary, injunctive, and declaratory relief. The proposed class
consists of DCF maximum security Muslim prisoners and DOC Muslim prisoners who
allegedly are being denied religious diets and services.
Courts are reluctant to certify a class represented by a prose litigant, because a layman
representing himself is considered "to be clearly too limited to allow him to risk the rights
of others." Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975). Although plaintiff,
a pro se litigant, has the right to appear on his own behalf, he may not represent another pro
se plaintiff in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1654; see, e.g., United States v. Grismore, 546 F.2d
844 (lOth Cir. 1976); Herrera-Venegas v. Sanchez-Rivera, 681 F.2d 41,42 (1st Cir. 1982);
United States v. Taylor, 569 F.2d 448,451 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 952 (1978).
After a review of the complaint, the court finds plaintiff cannot "fairly and adequately
protect the interests ofthe class." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). Therefore, plaintiff is granted
leave to file a proper amended complaint on behalf of himself only. The Court Clerk is

directed to send plaintiff the court's form for filing a proper amended complaint.
Plaintiff also requests the appointment of counsel in this action. Because he will not
be permitted to proceed with a class action, the court will consider the request for
appointment of counsel for plaintiff individually. Plaintiff bears the burden of convincing
the court that his claim has sufficient merit to warrant appointment of counsel. McCarthy

v. Weinberg, 753 F.2d 836, 838 (lOth Cir. 1985) (citing United States v. Masters, 484 F.2d
1251, 1253 (lOth Cir. 1973)). The court has carefully reviewed the merits of plaintiffs
claims, the nature of factual issues raised in his allegations, and his ability to investigate
crucial facts. McCarthy, 753 F.2d at 838 (citing Maclin v. Freake, 650 F.2d 885, 887-88 (7th
Cir. 1981)). After considering plaintiffs ability to present his claims and the complexity of
the legal issues raised by the claims, the court finds that appointment of counsel is not
warranted. See Williams v. Meese, 926 F.2d 994, 996 (lOth Cir. 1991); see also Rucks v.

Boergermann, 57 F.3d 978, 979 (lOth Cir. 1995).
ACCORD IN GL Y, plaintiff's motion for certification ofthe class [Docket No. 5] and
his motion for appointment of counsel [Docket No.3] are DENIED, and he is directed to file
a proper amended complaint for his personal claims on the court's form within fourteen (14)
days. Failure to file a proper amended complaint as directed will result in dismissal of this
action. All other pending motions are DENIED with leave to re-urge the motions after the
amended complaint is filed.

IT IS SO ORDERED this

tZ

1

fl;,v

-day of January 2013.

£~1,1; I /f. ·}4,,4·
RONALD A. WHITE
UNITEDSTATESDISTRICT JUDGE

2