Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00091/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00091-0/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

ABSALOM SHREVES, #132380, ) 

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

 v. ) CASE NO. 2:16-CV-91-WHA 

)

JEFFERSON S. DUNN, et al., )

)

 Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action is pending before the court on a complaint filed by 

Absalom Shreves (“Shreves”), a state inmate, alleging he is being denied an adequate 

amount of sleep. On June 8, 2016, Shreves filed a document styled as a Motion for 

Acknowledgement from the Court (Doc. 16), in which he references a request for class 

certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The court construes this document 

to contain a motion for class certification, and RECOMMENDS that this motion be 

DENIED.

Shreves is a pro se inmate unschooled in the law who seeks to represent the interests 

of other inmates currently experiencing sleep deprivation during their incarceration. In 

order to maintain an action as a class action, the court must be satisfied, among other 

requirements, that the “representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests 

of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). While a pro se inmate may “plead and conduct” 

his own claims in federal court, 28 U.S.C. § 1634, he has no concomitant right to litigate 

Case 2:16-cv-00091-WHA-GMB Document 23 Filed 06/10/16 Page 1 of 3
2

the claims of other individuals. The competence of a layman is “clearly too limited to 

allow him to risk the rights of others.” Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 

1975); Hummer v. Dalton, 657 F.2d 621 (4th Cir. 1981); Ethnic Awareness Org. v. Gagnon, 

568 F. Supp. 1186 (E.D. Wis. 1983). Moreover, the court finds that the prosecution of 

separate civil actions will not create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications of the 

type contemplated by Rule 23 with respect to any general claims for relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

23(b)(1)(A). Furthermore, the court has been given no basis on which to find that the 

questions of fact common to proposed class members predominate over the questions 

affecting projected individual members. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3); see also England, 516 F.

Supp. at 144 (denying pro se plaintiffs’ request to certify action as a class action finding 

that “any declaratory relief granted . . . would likely inure to the benefit of other similarlysituated individuals” even absent grant of request for class certification). Thus, the court 

concludes that the plaintiff’s motion to certify this case as a class action is due to be denied.

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

plaintiff’s motion for class certification contained in his Motion for Acknowledgement 

from the Court (Doc. 16) be DENIED. 

It is further ORDERED that on or before June 24, 2016 the parties may file 

objections to the Recommendation. A party must specifically identify the factual findings 

and legal conclusions in the Recommendation to which the objection is made; frivolous, 

conclusive, or general objections will not be considered. Failure to file written objections 

to the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations in accordance with the provisions 

of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) shall bar a party from a de novo determination by the District 

Case 2:16-cv-00091-WHA-GMB Document 23 Filed 06/10/16 Page 2 of 3
3

Court of legal and factual issues covered in the Recommendation and waives the right of 

the party to challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on unobjected-to factual 

and legal conclusions accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of 

plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982); 11th 

Cir. R. 3-1; see Stein v. Lanning Secs., Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982).

DONE this 10th day of June, 2016.

 /s/ Gray M. Borden 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-00091-WHA-GMB Document 23 Filed 06/10/16 Page 3 of 3