Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-00811/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-00811-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

JOSEPH R. TWAROG, et al., )

 )

Plaintiffs, )

 ) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 2:05cv811-MHT

 ) (WO) 

RICHARD ALLEN, Commissioner ,)

Department of Corrections, )

 )

Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Upon consideration of the recommendation of the

United States Magistrate Judge (doc. no. 51) and the

objections filed by plaintiffs (doc. no. 55), and after

an independent and de novo review of the record, it is

the ORDERED as follows:

(1) The plaintiffs’ objections (doc. no. 55) are

overruled.

(2) The recommendation of the United States

Magistrate Judge (doc. no. 51) is adopted.

Case 2:05-cv-00811-MHT-WC Document 57 Filed 07/31/07 Page 1 of 4
* The magistrate judge found that the numerosity

requirement was met, and there was no objection. Fed. R.

Civ. P. 23(a)(1).

2

(3) The plaintiffs’ motion for class certification

(doc. no. 44) is denied.

* * *

The court adds the following comments:

The court has determined that class certification

should be denied on grounds narrower than those

recommended by the magistrate judge. The court agrees

with the plaintiffs that their proposed definition of the

class does not include inmates who elect to participate

in the challenged substance-abuse programs. The court

further agrees with the plaintiffs that the commonality

and adequacy-of-representation requirements for class

certification are met. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2) & (4).*

However, because the named class representatives all

reside at Easterling Correctional Facility and the

putative class encompasses inmates state-wide, the named

representatives are not typical of the class as a whole.

Case 2:05-cv-00811-MHT-WC Document 57 Filed 07/31/07 Page 2 of 4
3

The court therefore agrees with the magistrate judge that

the plaintiffs do not meet the typicality requirement for

class certification. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3). See

Cooper v. Southern Co., 390 F.3d 695, 715 (11th Cir.

2004) (“Because the plaintiffs asserted broad claims on

behalf of a broad class, they were required to identify

representative plaintiffs who shared those broad

claims.”).

The plaintiffs correctly note that the court may, in

its discretion, redefine the class to meet the

requirements of Rule 23. 5 James Wm. Moore, Moore’s

Federal Practice § 23.24[7] (3d ed. 2007). In this case,

however, the court agrees with the magistrate judge that

redefining the class would not be proper. Given that the

plaintiffs allege unconstitutional conditions state-wide,

they have an obligation to select typical class

representatives rather than invite the court to narrow

the definition of the class and needlessly limit the

scope of the suit.

Case 2:05-cv-00811-MHT-WC Document 57 Filed 07/31/07 Page 3 of 4
In sum, because the putative class does not meet the

typicality requirement of Rule 23(a)(3) and because the

court declines to redefine the class, the plaintiffs’

motion for class certification is due to be denied.

DONE, this the 31st day of July, 2007.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00811-MHT-WC Document 57 Filed 07/31/07 Page 4 of 4