Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01094/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01094-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Anthony Rodriguez,

aka Anthony Aaron Cox, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Dora B. Schriro, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIV 07-1094-PHX-DGC (MHB)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE DAVID G. CAMPBELL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

Plaintiff Anthony Rodriguez, aka Anthony Aaron Cox, who is confined in the Arizona

State Prison Complex in Florence, Arizona, has filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Complaint contains a single count alleging that, in violation of the

Eighth Amendment, Defendants are deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s medical condition.

Plaintiff alleges that he has a life-threatening illness – hepatitis C, Stage 4, which includes

cirrhosis of the liver. He alleges that Defendants have policies and procedures that result in

the denial of medical care based on budgetary concerns and that Defendants enforce these

policies and procedures. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have denied him medical treatment

for his condition by denying him a liver transplant or alternative treatments. He also alleges

that he suffers from extreme fatigue, vomiting of blood, and loss of consciousness due to

hypoglycemia and that Defendants have acted with deliberate indifference by refusing to

transfer him to a medical facility better equipped to handle his medical needs. Plaintiff

Case 2:07-cv-01094-DGC-MHB Document 36 Filed 10/29/07 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 2 -

alleges that Defendants acted with deliberate indifference by denying treatment on the

grounds that there is no protocol and that Arizona Department of Corrections will not

authorize a liver transplant due to budgetary concerns.

Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s “motion for review of complaint for

class action certification” (Doc. #27). Plaintiff seeks class certification of all present inmates

at the Florence prison who he contends have allegedly been denied medical treatment for

hepatitis C.

Pursuant to Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a member of a class

may sue on behalf of the class only if: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder is

impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class, (3) the claims of

the representative party are typical of the claims of the class, and (4) the representative party

will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. The Court, having reviewed

Plaintiff’s motion and Defendants’ response thereto, concludes that Plaintiff has not met the

prerequisites for class certification.

First, Plaintiff has not established that the number of the proposed class are so

numerous or that joinder is impracticable. Although Plaintiff is not required to specify the

exact number of persons in the class, he cannot simply rely on conclusory allegations that

joinder is impracticable or on speculation as to the size of the class in order to prove

numerosity. Second, Plaintiff has not shown that there are questions of law or fact common

to all class members. Despite Plaintiff’s contention that the purported class would consist

of inmates who have allegedly been denied treatment for hepatitis C, it appears that the

factual circumstances as to each prospective class member with respect to medical history,

physical condition, and individual treatment needs would be better examined on a case-bycase basis. Finally, as a pro se plaintiff, Plaintiff cannot “fairly and adequately protect the

interests of the class,” as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a)(4). See

Oxendine v. Williams 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975) (plain error to permit imprisoned

litigant, unassisted by counsel, to represent fellow inmates in a class action). Although a

Case 2:07-cv-01094-DGC-MHB Document 36 Filed 10/29/07 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 3 -

non-attorney may appear pro se on behalf of himself, he has no authority to appear on behalf

of others. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not met the prerequisites for class

certification pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a).

CONCLUSION

Having determined that Plaintiff has not met the prerequisites for class certification,

the Court will recommend that Plaintiff’s “motion for review of complaint for class action

certification” be denied.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s “motion for review of

complaint for class action certification” (Doc. #27) be DENIED;

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of

Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court’s judgment. The

parties shall have ten days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within

which to file specific written objections with the Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);

Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a), 6(b) and 72. Thereafter, the parties have ten days within which to file a

response to the objections. Failure to timely file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report

and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by

the district court without further review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,

1121 (9th Cir. 2003).

DATED this 26th day of October, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-01094-DGC-MHB Document 36 Filed 10/29/07 Page 3 of 3