Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03692/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03692-0/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN D. WALKER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 vs.

EVANS, et al.,

Defendant(s).

_______________________________

__

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

C 05-3692 MMC (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL; DENYING

MOTIONS TO AMEND; DENYING

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS

(Docket Nos. 2 - 4)

Plaintiff Melvin Walker, a California prisoner proceeding pro se and currently

incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”), Soledad, California, filed the above-titled

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, purportedly on behalf of himself and five other named

plaintiffs. He seeks to proceed as a class action on behalf of all inmates housed in

administrative segregation at SVSP, claiming their constitutional rights have been violated in

that they have been deprived of sufficient time outdoors. Subsequent to the filing of the

complaint, plaintiff filed two separate motions, each titled Motion to Amend Classaction (sic)

Complaint, by which he seeks, inter alia, to add claims based on unsanitary exercise conditions.

Pro se prisoner plaintiffs may not bring class actions. They are not qualified to act as

class representatives as they are unable to fairly represent and adequately protect the interests

of the class. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a); 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) (holding that “a

litigant appearing in propria persona has no authority to represent anyone other than himself”). 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motions to amend are DENIED, and the above-titled action is
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

hereby DISMISSED, without prejudice to plaintiff’s filing a new action solely on his own

behalf. 

In light of the dismissal, the application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED and no

fee is due. 

This order terminates Docket Nos. 2, 3 and 4.

The Clerk shall close the file. 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 28, 2005

 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge