Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_09-cv-00081/USCOURTS-almd-2_09-cv-00081-1/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

RODNEY ALVERSON, #132431, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 2:09-CV-81-WHA 

) [WO]

)

JOHN CUMMINS, et al., )

)

 Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This is a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in which Rodney Alverson [“Alverson”], a state

inmate, challenges actions of correctional officials at the Easterling Correctional Facility with

respect to conditions of confinement at Easterling, being slapped on the back of the head by

a riot officer, the denial of visitation to family members, the lack of access to tobacco

products, and denial of adequate treatment for mental and medical conditions associated with

his nicotine withdrawals. In his complaint, Alverson seeks to proceed on behalf of “all

present and future inmates of Easterling Correctional Facility.” Plaintiff’s Amended

Complaint - Court Doc. No. 9 at 1. The court construes this request as a motion to certify

class under Rule 23, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Upon consideration of the motion

to certify case as a class action, the court concludes that this motion is due to be denied.

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

interests of all inmates affected by the actions about which he complains. Among the

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

Case 2:09-cv-00081-TMH-TFM Document 12 Filed 03/27/09 Page 1 of 3
2

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

23(a)(4), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 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 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 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). Moreover, the

court finds that the prosecution of separate civil actions will not create a risk of inconsistent

or varying adjudications with respect to any general claims for relief. Rule 23(b)(1)(A),

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Furthermore, the questions of fact common to proposed

class members do not predominate over such questions affecting projected individual

members. Rule 23(b)(3), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; see also England, 516 F.Supp.

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 similarly-situated

individuals” even absent grant of request for class certification). Thus, the plaintiff’s motion

to certify this case as a class action is due to be denied.

CONCLUSION

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

plaintiff's motion to certify case as a class action be DENIED. 

Case 2:09-cv-00081-TMH-TFM Document 12 Filed 03/27/09 Page 2 of 3
3

It is further 

ORDERED that on or before April 13, 2009 the parties may file objections to this

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

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 27th day of March, 2009.

/s/Terry F. Moorer 

TERRY F. MOORER 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-00081-TMH-TFM Document 12 Filed 03/27/09 Page 3 of 3