Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00860/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00860-2/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALFONSO HALL,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. SMITH, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00860-BAM-PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO APPOINT COUNSEL

(ECF NO. 17)

Plaintiff Alfonso Hall is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On May 27, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to certify this action as a class action. This 

action proceeds on Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Smith for excessive force and failure to 

decontaminate in violation of the Eighth Amendment. In his motion, Plaintiff seeks to bring this 

action on behalf of “the inmates at the California Correctional Institution and those who may in 

the future be housed there.” (ECF No. 17 at 1:15.) Plaintiff also seeks the appointment of 

counsel to represent the class.

I. Class Certification

Plaintiff is not an attorney and he is proceeding without counsel. A pro se litigant simply 

cannot “fairly and adequately protect the interest of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4); Fymbo 

Case 1:15-cv-00860-LJO-BAM Document 18 Filed 06/01/16 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

27

28

2

v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 213 F.3d 1320, 1321 (10th Cir. 2000). While a non-attorney 

proceeding pro se may bring his own claims to court, he may not represent others. E.g., Simon 

v. Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 644-65 (9th Cir. 2008); Fymbo, 213 F.3d at 1321; Johns v. 

County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1997); C. E. Pope Equity Trust v. United 

States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987). Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for class certification 

must be denied.

II. Appointment of Counsel

Plaintiff seeks the appointment of class counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 23(g). This action proceeds against Defendant Correctional Officer Smith for an 

incident of excess force and failure to decontaminate Plaintiff on May 20, 2014. Plaintiff does 

not identify any other inmates involved in the use of force. This action does not involve 

allegations or claims that would ordinarily be eligible for class certification pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a). Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of class counsel should 

therefore be denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to certify this case as a 

class action and motion for the appointment of class counsel is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 31, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00860-LJO-BAM Document 18 Filed 06/01/16 Page 2 of 2