Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_06-cv-02019/USCOURTS-azd-3_06-cv-02019-0/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

- 1 -

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

John E. Wheeler,

Plaintiff

-vsMohave County Board of Supervisors,

et al.,

Defendants

CV-06-2019-PCT-JWS (JI)

REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

re Motion for Class Certification and

Appointment of Class Counsel

I. MATTER UNDER CONSIDERATION

Plaintiff, presently incarcerated in the Arizona State Prison at Kingman, Arizona,

brings the instant action pro se pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting challenging various

conditions of confinement in the Mohave County Jail, as well as a denial of access to the

courts..

On July 30, 2007, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend and to Certify as Class (#18).

The undersigned has, by separate order, denied the motion to amend. However, this matter

is before this Court on referral from the District Judge. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(A),

class action certifications are excepted from magistrate judge jurisdiction. On the other

hand,, 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B) authorizes magistrate judges to conduct hearings, including

evidentiary hearings, and to submit to a judge of the district court proposed findings of fact

and recommendations for the disposition of this motion. Accordingly, the undersigned

makes the following proposed findings of fact, report, and recommendation pursuant to Rule

72(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B) and (C). 

II. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

On August 1, 2006, Plaintiff filed his original Complaint (#1) in this action pro se.

Case 3:06-cv-02019-JWS Document 22 Filed 08/16/07 Page 1 of 5
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 -

He subsequently filed a First Amended Complaint (#6) and a Motion to Certify as Class

Action (#4). By Order filed December 20, 2006 (#8), the Court dismissed the First Amended

Complaint with leave to amend and denied Plaintiff's Motion to Certify as Class Action. 

In addressing the Motion to Certify, the Court found that Plaintiff had failed to show

exceptional circumstances that would require the appointment of counsel, and therefore

Plaintiff's request for the appointment of counsel was denied. In turn, the Court denied the

motion for certification:

In light of the denial of Plaintiff's request for the appointment of

counsel, the Court will deny Plaintiff's Motion because Plaintiff will

not be able to fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

See Rule 23(a)(4), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

(Order 12/20/06, #8 at 8.) 

Plaintiff ultimately filed his Second Amended Complaint (#9), which was screened

and ordered served on April 30, 2007 (#10). Defendants were served, and on July 17 and 18,

2007, filed their answers (#13 & 14). On July 31, 2007, the Court entered a Scheduling

Order (#17).

On July 30, 2007, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Amend and to Certify as Class

(#18). In addition to seeking to amend the complaint to name additional plaintiffs, that

motion seeks to certify this matter as a class action, and requests appointment of class

counsel. By separate order, the undersigned has summarily denied the motion to amend for

failure to submit a proposed amendment in compliance with Local Rule of Civil Procedure

15.1(a)(1) and Local Rules of Civil Procedure 3.4 and 3.5. 

Defendants have responded (#19), arguing that Plaintiff has not the requirements of

numerosity, commonality, typicality and adequacy of representation.

Although briefing on the motion is not complete, the Court finds that further briefing

is not necessary to a fair adjudication of the motion. 

III. APPLICATION OF LAW TO FACTS

Rule 23, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, governs the certification of a class action.

Case 3:06-cv-02019-JWS Document 22 Filed 08/16/07 Page 2 of 5
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 -

That rule establishes (1) prerequisites and (2) special circumstances that must be shown to

justify the maintenance of the class action. 

Rule 23(a) establishes the prerequisites to maintaining a class action. “The burden of

demonstrating that the elements of section (a) are satisfied is on the party seeking to have

a class certified.” Doninger v. Pacific Northwest Bell, Inc., 564 F.2d 1304, 1308 (9th

Cir.1977). Rule 23(a) provides: 

One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative

parties on behalf of all only if (1) the class is so numerous that joinder

of all members is impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or fact

common to the class, (3) the claims or defenses of the representative

parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and (4) the

representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of

the class.

Thus, there are four pre-requisites to the certification of a class: (1) numerosity, (2)

commonality, (3) typicality, and (4) adequate representation. 

Plaintiff makes assertions as to the numerosity, commonality, and typicality criteria.

However, other than his unsupported request for appointment of counsel, Plaintiff fails to

attempt any showing that he can meet the requirement for adequate representation. 

The “adequacy” prong of Rule 23(a) ensures that the interests of absent class members

are adequately protected before binding them by a judgment in action to which they are not

a party. Hansberry v. Lee, 311 U.S. 32, 42, 61 S.Ct. 115, 85 L.Ed. 22 (1940). Whether the

class representatives satisfy this requirement depends on a variety of factors, including "the

qualifications of counsel for the representatives, an absence of antagonism, a sharing of

interests between representatives and absentees, and the unlikelihood that the suit is

collusive." Crawford v. Honig, 37 F.3d 485, 487 (9th Cir.1994) (quoting Brown v. Ticor Title

Ins. Co., 982 F.2d 386, 390 (9th Cir.1992)).

As recognized in the Court’s rejection of Plaintiff’s earlier request, a key factor is the

competence of the representative’s counsel. A representative without counsel will have great

difficulty meeting this prong, if he may meet it at all.

Ability to protect the interests of the class depends in part on the quality

of counsel, and we consider the competence of a layman representing

himself to be clearly too limited to allow him to risk the rights of

Case 3:06-cv-02019-JWS Document 22 Filed 08/16/07 Page 3 of 5
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

1

 As noted in the comments to the 1966 Amendments to Rule 23(a), the prerequisites

of 23(a) are “necessary but not sufficient conditions for a class action. Subdivision (b)

describes the additional elements which in varying situations justify the use of a class

action.” However, because the undersigned concludes that the prerequisites of Rule 23(a)

are not met, the special circumstances issues are not reached.

- 4 -

others. Neither [the plaintiff] nor any other prisoner has assigned error

to the class aspect of this case, but it is plain error to permit this

imprisoned litigant who is unassisted by counsel to represent his fellow

inmates in a class action.

Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975). Cf. Phillips v. Tobin, 548 F.2d

408 (2nd Cir. 1976) (denying a pro se litigant's right to bring a shareholders' derivative

action). 

The Court has already denied Plaintiff’s request for appointment of his own counsel.

(Order 12/20/06, #8 at 8.) Plaintiff does not renew that request, and makes no showing to

support such a request. Although Plaintiff has done an adequate job in representing himself,

the Court cannot condone Plaintiff acting as attorney for a class of "thousands of inmates"

and thereby "risk the rights of others" in the hands of "a layman representing himself".

Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975). Accordingly, Plaintiff still fails

to meet the "adequate representation" prerequisite of Rule 23(a)(4), Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. Therefore, Plaintiff may not be granted permission to proceed with his claims

as a class action.1

Because the Court must deny Plaintiff’s request for certification of the class, there is

no basis for appointment of class counsel. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g),

providing for appointment of class counsel upon certification of class).

IV. RECOMMENDATION

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s "Motion to Certify as a

Class" filed July 30, 2007 (#18) be DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s "Motion to Appoint Class

Counsel" filed July 30, 2007 (#18) be DENIED.

Case 3:06-cv-02019-JWS Document 22 Filed 08/16/07 Page 4 of 5
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

- 5 -

V. EFFECT OF RECOMMENDATION

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. 

However, pursuant to Rule 72(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties shall

have ten (10) days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which

to file specific written objections with the Court. Thereafter, the parties have ten (10) days

within which to file a response to the objections. Failure to timely file objections to any

factual or legal determinations of the Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a

party's right to de novo consideration of the issues. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328

F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc).

DATED: August 16, 2007 _____________________________________

JAY R. IRWIN 

S:\Drafts\OutBox\O6-2019-018r RR 07 08 01 re MClassCert.wpd United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:06-cv-02019-JWS Document 22 Filed 08/16/07 Page 5 of 5