Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02763/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02763-1/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 Denying Motion for Service Without Prejudice; Denying Motion for Appointment For Counsel; Denying Motion for 

Certification of Class Action; Denying Motion for Preliminary Injunction; Dismissing Complaint with Leave to Amend as to

Plaintiff Gerstner; Dismissing Remaining Plaintiffs Without Prejudice

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.05\Gerstner763dwltamisc 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CRAIG GERSTNER, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

J. WOODFORD, et. al., 

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-2763 JF (PR)

ORDER DENYING

MOTION FOR SERVICE

WITHOUT PREJUDICE;

DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL; DENYING

MOTION FOR

CERTIFICATION OF

CLASS ACTION;

DENYING MOTION FOR

PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTION;

DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

AS TO PLAINTIFF

GERSTNER; DISMISSING

REMAINING PLAINTIFFS

WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

(Docket Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7)

Plaintiff Craig Gerstner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights

action along with other inmate Plaintiffs, on behalf of himself and behalf of all inmates

who are or will be confined at the Correctional Training Facility (CTF) in Soledad,

California. Plaintiff Gerstner, the only named Plaintiff, has filed several motions

including a motion for service, motion for appointment of counsel, motion for

Case 5:05-cv-02763-JF Document 10 Filed 03/22/06 Page 1 of 7
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 Denying Motion for Service Without Prejudice; Denying Motion for Appointment For Counsel; Denying Motion for 

Certification of Class Action; Denying Motion for Preliminary Injunction; Dismissing Complaint with Leave to Amend as to

Plaintiff Gerstner; Dismissing Remaining Plaintiffs Without Prejudice

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.05\Gerstner763dwltamisc 2

certification of class action, and a motion for a preliminary injunction. The Court

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

Plaintiff’s motion for class certification (docket no. 5) and dismiss all Plaintiffs without

prejudice except for the named Plaintiff, Craig Gerstner. The Court will DENY

Plaintiff’s motion for service (docket no. 3) without prejudice and DENY Plaintiff’s

motion for appointment of counsel (docket no. 4) without prejudice. The Court will

DENY Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction (docket no. 7) without prejudice. 

The Court will dismiss the complaint with leave to amend as to Plaintiff Gerstner to file

an amended complaint including all of the claims he wishes to present containing

allegations pertaining to himself only. 

DISCUSSION

A. Class Certification and Joinder

Plaintiff Gerstner filed this action on behalf of himself and additional Plaintiffs, 

members of the Mens Advisory Council at CTF, purporting to represent all inmates who

are or will be confined at the Correctional Training Facility, concerning the alleged

unconstitutional taking and misappropriation of their Inmate Welfare Fund (Trust Fund)

at the prison. See Complaint at 3. Plaintiff Gerstner filed a motion for certification of a

class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b). 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

Case 5:05-cv-02763-JF Document 10 Filed 03/22/06 Page 2 of 7
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 Denying Motion for Service Without Prejudice; Denying Motion for Appointment For Counsel; Denying Motion for 

Certification of Class Action; Denying Motion for Preliminary Injunction; Dismissing Complaint with Leave to Amend as to

Plaintiff Gerstner; Dismissing Remaining Plaintiffs Without Prejudice

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.05\Gerstner763dwltamisc 3

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. Accordingly, Plaintiff Gerstner’s motion for

certification of a class action (docket no. 5) is DENIED. The additional Plaintiffs,

members of the Mens Advisory Council at CTF, are DISMISSED as Plaintiffs from this

action without prejudice. 

Plaintiff Gerstner, the named Plaintiff, may proceed with this action. However, he

must first file an amended complaint containing allegations pertaining to himself only. 

The current complaint containing allegations pertaining to all Plaintiffs is DISMISSED

without prejudice. The amended complaint must be simple and concise and must include

the civil case number used in this order (C 05-2763 JF (PR)) and the words “AMENDED

COMPLAINT” on the first page. Failure to file a proper amended complaint within

thirty days of the date of this order will result in the dismissal of this action without

prejudice. The Court will enclose a copy of the civil rights complaint form with this

order. Plaintiff’s motion for service of the complaint (docket no. 3) is DENIED without

prejudice. 

B. Motion for Appointment of Counsel

Plaintiff Gerstner filed a motion for appointment of counsel. Plaintiff requests

appointment of counsel because he is unable to afford counsel, the issues involved are

complex, he requests class certification which will involve representing the interests of

thousands of class members, and he has limited knowledge of the law. See Pl.’s Mot. at

1-2. However, there is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case. Lassiter v. Dep’t

of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). 28 U.S.C. § 1915 confers on a district court

only the power to “request” that counsel represent a litigant who is proceeding in forma

pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). This does not give the courts the power to make

“coercive appointments of counsel.” Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296,

310 (1989). 

Case 5:05-cv-02763-JF Document 10 Filed 03/22/06 Page 3 of 7
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

 The district court cannot properly balance the hardships without taking into account the

hardship, or lack of hardship, to the non-movants. Armstrong v. Mazurek, 94 F.3d 566, 568 (9th

Cir. 1996).

Order Denying Motion for Service Without Prejudice; Denying Motion for Appointment For Counsel; Denying Motion for 

Certification of Class Action; Denying Motion for Preliminary Injunction; Dismissing Complaint with Leave to Amend as to

Plaintiff Gerstner; Dismissing Remaining Plaintiffs Without Prejudice

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.05\Gerstner763dwltamisc 4

The court may ask counsel to represent an indigent litigant under § 1915 only in

“exceptional circumstances,” the determination of which requires an evaluation of both

(1) the likelihood of success on the merits and (2) the ability of the plaintiff to articulate

his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Rand v.

Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017

(9th Cir. 1991); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). Both of

these factors must be viewed together before reaching a decision on a request for counsel

under § 1915. See id. Neither the need for discovery, nor the fact that the pro se litigant

would be better served with the assistance of counsel, necessarily qualify the issues

involved as complex. See Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (where plaintiff’s pursuit of discovery

was comprehensive and focused and his papers were generally articulate and organized,

district court did not abuse discretion in denying request for counsel). Because the Court

has dismissed the instant complaint with leave to amend, the Court concludes that

appointment of counsel is not necessary at this time. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for

appointment of counsel (docket no. 4) is DENIED without prejudice. 

C. Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Plaintiff Gerstner filed a motion for a preliminary injunction requesting that the

Court prohibit Defendant Barker and others from conducting searches of the Mens

Advisory Council’s office at CTF and from seizing Plaintiff’s evidence in this action. 

The Ninth Circuit has held that requests for injunctive relief may be based upon

either of two sets of criteria. The “traditional” test requires the movants to: (1) establish a

strong likelihood of success on the merits; (2) show the possibility of irreparable injury to

the plaintiff if the preliminary relief is not granted; (3) show a balance of hardships

favoring the movants1; and (4) show that granting the injunction favors the public interest. 

Case 5:05-cv-02763-JF Document 10 Filed 03/22/06 Page 4 of 7
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 Denying Motion for Service Without Prejudice; Denying Motion for Appointment For Counsel; Denying Motion for 

Certification of Class Action; Denying Motion for Preliminary Injunction; Dismissing Complaint with Leave to Amend as to

Plaintiff Gerstner; Dismissing Remaining Plaintiffs Without Prejudice

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.05\Gerstner763dwltamisc 5

Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Comm’n v. Nat’l Football League, 634 F.2d 1197, 1200

(9th Cir. 1980). 

The “alternative” test requires that the movants demonstrate either a combination

of probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury, or that serious

questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in their favor. See

Diamontiney v. Borg, 918 F.2d 793, 795 (9th Cir. 1990); Alaska v. Native Village of

Venetie, 856 F.2d 1384, 1388 (9th Cir. 1988); American Motorcyclist Ass’n v. Watt, 714

F.2d 962, 965 (9th Cir. 1983). These two formulations represent two points on a sliding

scale in which the required degree of irreparable harm increases as the probability of

success decreases. Diamontiney, 918 F.2d at 795. At the very least, however, the moving

party must show a fair chance of success on the merits. Armstrong v. Mazurek, 94 F.3d

566, 567 (9th Cir. 1996).

The Court concludes that Plaintiff has not shown sufficient facts to establish that

he actually faces irreparable harm at this time. The Court has yet to review the merits of

the complaint and Plaintiff has not shown his probable success on the merits. Therefore,

Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction (docket no. 7) is DENIED without

prejudice. 

CONCLUSION

1. Plaintiff Gerstner’s motion for certification of a class action (docket no. 5) 

is DENIED. The additional Plaintiffs, members of the Mens Advisory Council at CTF,

are DISMISSED as Plaintiffs from this action without prejudice.

2. As to Plaintiff Gerstner, the complaint is hereby DISMISSED with leave to

amend, as indicated above, within thirty days from the date this order is filed. The

amended complaint must include the caption and civil case number used in this order 

(C 05-2763 JF (PR)) and the words “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page. 

Because an amended complaint completely replaces the original complaint, Plaintiff must

include in it all the claims he wishes to present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258,

Case 5:05-cv-02763-JF Document 10 Filed 03/22/06 Page 5 of 7
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 Denying Motion for Service Without Prejudice; Denying Motion for Appointment For Counsel; Denying Motion for 

Certification of Class Action; Denying Motion for Preliminary Injunction; Dismissing Complaint with Leave to Amend as to

Plaintiff Gerstner; Dismissing Remaining Plaintiffs Without Prejudice

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.05\Gerstner763dwltamisc 6

1262 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 321 (1992). Plaintiff may not incorporate any

material from the original complaint by reference. Plaintiff must include all

documentation and supporting information with the amended complaint. Failure to

amend within the designated time will result in the dismissal of the complaint

without prejudice.

3. Plaintiff’s motion for service of the complaint (docket no. 3) is DENIED 

without prejudice. 

4. Plaintiff ’s motion for appointment of counsel (docket no. 4) is DENIED 

without prejudice. 

5. Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction (docket no. 7) is DENIED 

without prejudice.

 6. As to Plaintiff Gerstner, it is his responsibility to prosecute this case. 

Plaintiff must keep the Court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper

with the Clerk headed “Notice of Change of Address.” He must comply with the Court’s

orders in a timely fashion or ask for an extension of time to do so. Failure to comply may

result in the dismissal of this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 

 JEREMY FOGEL

 United States District Judge

Case 5:05-cv-02763-JF Document 10 Filed 03/22/06 Page 6 of 7
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 Denying Motion for Service Without Prejudice; Denying Motion for Appointment For Counsel; Denying Motion for 

Certification of Class Action; Denying Motion for Preliminary Injunction; Dismissing Complaint with Leave to Amend as to

Plaintiff Gerstner; Dismissing Remaining Plaintiffs Without Prejudice

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.05\Gerstner763dwltamisc 7

This is to certify that on , a copy of this ruling

was mailed to the following:

Craig Gerstner

E-59690

EW-228L

CTF - Soledad

P.O. Box 689

Soledad, CA 93960-0689

Case 5:05-cv-02763-JF Document 10 Filed 03/22/06 Page 7 of 7