Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01938/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01938-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AMAESHI NWOZUZU, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1938 MCE DAD P

vs.

DAVE L. RUNNELS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has filed a motion for certification of a plaintiff class pursuant to Rule 23

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff did not bring this case as a class action and

cannot pursue the case as a class action for several reasons. First, plaintiff’s claims arise from

events that happened to him over several years at one institution. Second, plaintiff has not

sought class relief and his claims would not support such relief. Third, plaintiff is a non-lawyer

proceeding without counsel. It is well established that a layperson cannot ordinarily represent the

interests of a class. See McShane v. United States, 366 F.2d 286 (9th Cir. 1966). This rule

becomes almost absolute when the putative class representative is incarcerated and proceeding

pro se. Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975). Plaintiff would be unable to

“fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class,” as required by Rule 23(a)(4). See Martin

v. Middendorf, 420 F. Supp. 779 (D.D.C. 1976).

Case 2:05-cv-01938-MCE -DAD Document 29 Filed 07/11/06 Page 1 of 2
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

2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s February 9, 2006 motion for

certification of a plaintiff class is denied.

DATED: July 10, 2006.

DAD:13

nwoz1938.cert

Case 2:05-cv-01938-MCE -DAD Document 29 Filed 07/11/06 Page 2 of 2