Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01801/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01801-2/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 To the extent that Plaintiff is trying to add claims in the Hydrick case, Plaintiff must contact the plaintiffs’ 1

counsel in that case.

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE N. ALLEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

MAYBERG, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:06-CV-01801-AWI-NEW(DLB)-P 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

PERMISSIVE JOINDER AS A CLASS

ACTION AND TO AMEND COMPLAINT

(Doc. 12)

George N. Allen (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 16, 2007, Plaintiff filed a

Motion for Permissive Joinder as a Class Action and to Amend the Complaint. The first

amended complaint was also filed on April 16, 2007.

 The motion for joinder as a class action shall be denied. Plaintiff seeks certification of 1

this litigation as a class action. Plaintiff, however, is a non-lawyer proceeding without counsel. 

It is well established that a layperson cannot ordinarily represent the interests of a class. See

Case 1:06-cv-01801-AWI-GSA Document 13 Filed 05/08/07 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

McShane v. United States, 366 F.2d 286 (9th Cir. 1966). This rule becomes almost absolute

when, as here, the putative class representative is incarcerated and proceeding pro se. Oxendine

v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975). In direct terms, Plaintiff cannot “fairly and

adequately protect the interests of the class” as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). See Martin

v. Middendorf, 420 F. Supp. 779 (D.D.C. 1976). This action, therefore, will not be construed as

a class action and instead will be construed as an individual civil suit brought by Plaintiff.

The motion to amend the complaint shall be denied as unnecessary. Under Rule 15(a) of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may amend the party’s pleading once as a matter of

course at any time before a responsive pleading is served. Otherwise, a party may amend only by

leave of the court or by written consent of the adverse party, and leave shall be freely given when

justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). In this case, a responsive pleading has not been served

and plaintiff has not previously amended his complaint. Therefore, Plaintiff may file an amended

complaint without leave of the court, and Plaintiff’s motion to amend is unnecessary.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The Motion for Permissive Joinder as a Class Action is DENIED; and

2. The Motion to Amend the Complaint is DENIED as unnecessary.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 8, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01801-AWI-GSA Document 13 Filed 05/08/07 Page 2 of 2