Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02833/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02833-0/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

JWB

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Angelo Paul Perondi, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Dora Schriro, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-2833-PHX-ROS-JRI

ORDER

Before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion for Certification of the Class and for

Appointment of Counsel (Doc. # 20), Defendants’ Response (Doc. # 22), Judge Irwin’s

Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 29), and Plaintiff’s Objections to the R&R (Doc. # 31).

Judge Irwin recommends that Plaintiff’s motion for class certification and appointment of

counsel be denied. After reviewing the R&R and objections thereto, the Court will accept

the R&R and deny the motion.

I. Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Counsel

Plaintiff seeks certification of a class of all past, present, and future inmates at the

Florence prison, who he contends have all been exposed to contaminated water (Doc. # 20

at 1). As articulated in the R&R, Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs

the certification of a class action. Plaintiff must demonstrate the four prerequisites to the

certification of a class: (1) numerosity, (2) commonality, (3) typicality, and (4) adequate

representation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). 

Case 2:06-cv-02833-ROS-JRI Document 39 Filed 04/26/07 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 -

The R&R found that the numerosity and commonality prerequisites have presumably

been met, and the Court has no evidence to suggest that they have not. The R&R ultimately

determined, however, that the typicality and adequate representation prongs have not been

met, precluding certification of the class. 

A. Typicality

Specifically, the R&R found that Plaintiff offered no specific evidence that his claim

was typical of others in the potential class. Plaintiff’s objection to this conclusion in the

R&R states that his claims are typical of other potential plaintiffs as they have all been

exposed to the same tainted water and Eighth Amendment violations. 

“The test of typicality is whether other members have the same or similar injury,

whether the action is based on conduct which is not unique to the named plaintiffs, and

whether other class members have been injured by the same conduct.” Dukes v. Wal-Mart,

Inc., 474 F.3d 1214, 1232 (9th Cir. 2007). Accepting Plaintiff’s arguments as true, other

potential class members would have similar injuries based on conduct that is not unique to

Plaintiff. Defendants have not responded to Plaintiff’s motion and therefore have not

adduced any evidence to suggest that other potential class members’ claims are atypical of

Plaintiff’s claims. Therefore, the Court will presume that the typicality prong has been met.

B. Adequate Representation

The R&R also found that Plaintiff failed to meet the requirement for adequate

representation because, as a pro se litigant, he cannot represent the interests of the other

potential class members. Plaintiff’s objection states that he will adequately represent the

class. Plaintiff, however, is not an attorney. Accordingly, although Plaintiff may appear on

his own behalf, he may not appear as an attorney for other persons in a class action.

McShane v. United States, 366 F.2d 286, 288 (9th Cir. 1966) (nonlawyer had no authority

to appear as an attorney for other persons in a purported class action); Oxendine v. Williams,

509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975) (plain error to permit an inmate proceeding pro se to

represent fellow inmates in a class action). “This rule is an outgrowth not only of the belief

that a layman, untutored in the law, cannot ‘adequately represent’ the interests of the

Case 2:06-cv-02833-ROS-JRI Document 39 Filed 04/26/07 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 -

members of the ‘class,’ but also out of the long-standing general prohibition against even

attorneys acting as both class representative and counsel for the class.” Huddleston v.

Duckworth, 97 F.R.D. 512, 514 (N.D. Ind. 1983). Consequently, Plaintiff has not established

the prerequisites to certify this case as a class action. 

C. Appointment of Counsel

Plaintiff has also not established that the appointment of counsel is necessary. The

appointment of counsel in a civil rights case is required only when exceptional circumstances

are present. Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089 (9th Cir. 1980); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789

F.2d 1328 (9th Cir. 1986). “A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation

of both ‘the likelihood of success on the merits [and] the ability of the petitioner to articulate

his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’” Wilborn, 789 F.2d

at 1331 (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). The Court must

review both of these factors together in deciding whether or not to appoint counsel. Id. 

Plaintiff has not demonstrated the existence of exceptional circumstances such that

appointment of counsel is necessary. Plaintiff has demonstrated an ability to articulate his

claims and has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits. Consequently,

Plaintiff’s motion will be denied.

IT IS ORDERED that Judge Irwin’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 29) is

ACCEPTED and Plaintiff’s Motion for Certification of the Class and for Appointment of

Counsel (Doc. # 20) is DENIED. 

DATED this 25th day of April, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-02833-ROS-JRI Document 39 Filed 04/26/07 Page 3 of 3