Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-05417/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-05417-0/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

Order Dismissing Plaintiffs Without Prejudice; Denying Pending Motions to Proceed in Forma Pauperis

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.07\Cooperwood417misc 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL MUTAWALLY

COOPERWOOD, et. al., 

Plaintiffs,

 v.

ROBERT TILTON, et. al., 

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-5417 RMW (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING 

PLAINTIFFS WITHOUT

PREJUDICE; DENYING

PENDING MOTIONS TO

PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS 

(Docket Nos. 15, 16)

Plaintiffs, ten state prisoners at Pelican Bay State Prison proceeding pro se, filed

this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action. Thereafter, Plaintiff Cooperwood, the firstnamed Plaintiff, filed an amended complaint pertaining to himself only. The Court

concludes that this action cannot proceed as a class action and will therefore dismiss all

Plaintiffs without prejudice except for the named Plaintiff, Michael Cooperwood. 

The Court will DENY without prejudice the remaining Plaintiff’s motions to proceed in

forma pauperis (docket nos. 15, 16) as moot. The Court will review Plaintiff

Cooperwood’s amended complaint in a separate written order. 

///

-------

JF

Case 5:07-cv-05417-JF Document 20 Filed 04/09/08 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

Order Dismissing Plaintiffs Without Prejudice; Denying Pending Motions to Proceed in Forma Pauperis

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.07\Cooperwood417misc 2

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs filed this action as a “class action” against Pelican Bay State Prison

(“PBSP”) officials concerning the conditions of confinement at the prison. The

prerequisites to maintenance of a class action are that: (1) the class is so numerous that

joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there are common questions of law and fact,

(3) the representative party’s claims or defenses are typical of the class claims or

defenses, and (4) the representative party will fairly and adequately protect the class

interests. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). Pro se prisoner plaintiffs are not adequate class

representatives able to fairly represent and adequately protect the interests of the class. 

Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975); see also Russell v. United

States, 308 F.2d 78, 79 (9th Cir. 1962) (“a litigant appearing in propria persona has no

authority to represent anyone other than himself”), so class certification may be denied on

that basis, see Griffin v. Smith, 493 F. Supp. 129, 131 (W.D.N.Y. 1980) (denying class

certification on basis that pro se prisoner cannot adequately represent class). Therefore,

this action cannot proceed as a class action. Plaintiff Cooperwood has filed an amended

complaint with allegations pertaining to himself only. In his amended complaint, Plaintiff

Cooperwood acknowledges that this action cannot proceed as a class action. Amended

Complaint at ii-iii. 

Accordingly, Plaintiffs Anderson, Vasquez, Eariaes, Romo, Gilbert H. Cabral. Jr.,

Anthony Cabral, Zubiate, Rosbrugh, and Williams are DISMISSED as Plaintiffs from this

action without prejudice. Plaintiff Anthony Cabral’s and Gilbert H. Cabral Jr.’s motions

to proceed in forma pauperis (docket nos. 15, 16) are DENIED as moot. Plaintiff

Cooperwood has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate written

order. No filing fee is due for the remaining plaintiffs. The Court will review Plaintiff

Cooperwood’s amended complaint in a separate written order. 

///

///

///

Case 5:07-cv-05417-JF Document 20 Filed 04/09/08 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

Order Dismissing Plaintiffs Without Prejudice; Denying Pending Motions to Proceed in Forma Pauperis

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.07\Cooperwood417misc 3

CONCLUSION

1. Plaintiffs Anderson, Vasquez, Eariaes, Romo, Gilbert H. Cabral. Jr., 

Anthony Cabral, Zubiate, Rosbrugh, and Williams are DISMISSED as Plaintiffs from this

action without prejudice. 

2. Plaintiff Anthony Cabral’s and Gilbert H. Cabral Jr.’s motions to proceed in

forma pauperis (docket nos. 15, 16) are DENIED as moot. Plaintiff Cooperwood has

been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate written order. No filing fee

is due for the remaining plaintiffs, as they are dismissed from this action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 

 JEREMY FOGEL

 United States District Judge

4/8/08

Case 5:07-cv-05417-JF Document 20 Filed 04/09/08 Page 3 of 3