Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_06-cv-00730/USCOURTS-almd-2_06-cv-00730-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

QUENTIN WAGNER, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 2:06-CV-730-MHT

) [WO]

)

D. T. MARSHALL, et al., )

)

 Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This is a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in which Quentin Wagner [“Wagner], an inmate

confined in the Montgomery County Detention Facility, challenges the constitutionality of

the Alabama Community Notification Act, Ala. Code 1975 § 15-20-20 et seq. (1975, as

amended). In his complaint, Wagner seeks to proceed in this case on behalf of all other

similarly situated inmates. The court therefore construes the complaint to contain a motion

for class certification under Rule 23, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Upon consideration

of the motion for class certification, the court concludes that this motion is due to be denied.

Wagner is an indigent inmate who seeks to represent the interests of all inmates who

are subject to the provisions of the Alabama Community Notification Act. Among the

requirements which litigants must meet in order to maintain an action as a class action is that

the “representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” Rule

23(a)(4), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court concludes that Wagner will not be

Case 2:06-cv-00730-MHT-SRW Document 4 Filed 08/23/06 Page 1 of 3
2

able to fairly represent the class. See Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405 (4th Cir. 1975);

Hummer v. Dalton, 657 F.2d 621 (4th Cir. 1981); Ethnic Awareness Organization v. Gagnon,

568 F.Supp. 1186 (E.D. Wis. 1983); Inmates, Washington County Jail v. England, 516

F.Supp. 132 (E.D. Tenn. 1980), affirmed, 659 F.2d 1081 (6th Cir. 1981). Class certification

in this case is therefore improper. Thus, the plaintiff’s motion for class certification is due

to be denied.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that:

1. The plaintiff's motion for class certification be DENIED. 

2. This case be referred back to the undersigned for appropriate proceedings. 

It is further 

ORDERED that on or before September 4, 2006 the parties may file objections to the

Recommendation. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the

Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which the party is objecting. Frivolous, conclusive

or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are advised

that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable.

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and advisements in the

Magistrate Judge's Recommendation shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the

District Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar the party from

attacking on appeal factual findings in the Recommendation accepted or adopted by the

Case 2:06-cv-00730-MHT-SRW Document 4 Filed 08/23/06 Page 2 of 3
3

District Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v.

Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d

33 (11th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981, en

banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed

down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981.

DONE, this 23rd day of August, 2006.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00730-MHT-SRW Document 4 Filed 08/23/06 Page 3 of 3