Heim v. Dauphin County Prison et al

Filing 35

ORDER denying 19 Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Signed by Honorable A. Richard Caputo on 8/4/11 (jam, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JOSEPH HEIM,
Plaintiff
v.
DAUPHIN COUNTY PRISON, et al.,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL NO. 3:CV-10-1656
(Judge Caputo)

ORDER
THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:
On August 10, 2010, Joseph Heim, then a prisoner housed at the Dauphin
County Prison (DCP), filed a civil rights action challenging the DCP Policy of
Financial Responsibility under which fees are charged to inmates for room and
board as well as other services. Doc. 1-2, Compl. at pp. 38 - 39. As defendants he
names the DCP Warden, Deputy Wardens, Prison Board of Inspectors, the
Business Office and the “Manager of” Freddie McNeal. Presently before the Court
is Mr. Heim’s Motion for Addendum’s Addition to Docket (doc. 19). In this motion,
Plaintiff seeks to supplement his Complaint with an “Addendum” (doc. 19-1) as well
as seek class certification by adding thirty (30) co-plaintiffs. Id. For the reasons that
follow, the motion will be denied.
While Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) allows for an amendment of the pleading once as
a matter of right, Joseph Heim’s “addendum” is incomplete and does not stand as a
singular cohesive complaint. Furthermore, the “Addendum” seeks to add thirty (30)
new co-plaintiff’s which he seeks to represent, making this a class action. Such

certification requires that the named plaintiff prove that he has met the requirements
of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation. See
Fed.R.Civ.P. 23. A class action can be maintained only if the representative parties
will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class, see Fed.R.Civ.P.
23(a)(4), but, in this case, Mr. Heim is not able to satisfy the adequacy of
representation factor because he lacks legal education. See Krebs v. Rutgers, 797
F.Supp. 1246, 1261 (D.N.J. 1992) (denying class certification to pro se plaintiffs
without sufficient legal education). In fact, it is well established that pro se plaintiffs
are not favored as representative parties in a class action as they generally cannot
represent and protect the interests of the class fairly and adequately. See Hagan v.
Rogers, 570 F.3d 146, 159 (3d Cir. 2009)(citing Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d
1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975). Accordingly, because Plaintiff is an incarcerated, pro se
litigant no longer housed at DCP, the Court finds that he is not an appropriate
representatives of a proposed class.
ACCORDINGLY, THIS

4th

DAY OF AUGUST, 2011, IT IS

HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (doc. 19) is DENIED.

/s/ A. Richard Caputo
A. RICHARD CAPUTO
United States District Judge

-2-