Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02564/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02564-2/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Timothy Paul Olmos, )

)

Plaintiff, ) CIV 10-02564 PHX GMS MEA

)

v. ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

)

Charles Ryan, et al., )

) 

Defendants. )

______________________________ )

TO THE HONORABLE G. MURRAY SNOW:

The only Defendants remaining in this matter are

Defendant Ryan and Defendant Ortega. The complaint, filed

November 28, 2010, was originally filed as one seeking

certification of a class action. 

In an order dated February 9, 2011, the Court concluded

that the matter should not proceed as a class action suit. See

Doc. 11. The Court stated:

Although Timothy P. Olmos; David Stokes, II;

James Walker; Jose Ulloa; Roger Clark;

William McEnany; and “all others similarly

situated” are listed as Plaintiffs in the

caption of the Complaint, all of the

pleadings in this action, including the

Complaint, are only signed by Plaintiff

Olmos. Additionally, in his lodged “Notice Of

Appearance As Lead Plaintiff” (Doc. 4)

(Notice), Plaintiff Olmos “notifies the Court

of his appearance as lead plaintiff” and

states that this “is appropriate due to the

fact that his co-plaintiffs have approved of

Plaintiff Olmos taking this role.” Plaintiff

informs the Court that as “lead plaintiff,

Case 2:10-cv-02564-GMS Document 70 Filed 01/12/12 Page 1 of 6
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-

Plaintiff Olmos will be responsible for all

filing fees that may be incurred by his

prosecution of this action” and that “[i]f

any Plaintiff has died (or will die) prior to

the commencement or resolution of this action

(Plaintiff Olmos has had no contact with any

of the named Plaintiffs since being moved to

South Unit in October 2009), Plaintiff moves

the Court to permit him to continue to

represent any decedents that are named

Plaintiffs for the benefit of their estates.”

 In effect, Plaintiff is seeking to bring

this action on behalf of the other inmates

that he has listed as Plaintiffs in the

caption of the Complaint and to act as

counsel for them. This he cannot do. See C.E.

Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d

696, 697 (9th Cir.1987) (while a non-attorney

may represent himself, he has no authority to

appear as an attorney for others). Not only

have David Stokes, II; James Walker; Jose

Ulloa; Roger Clark; William McEnany; and “all

others similarly situated” not signed the

Complaint, but also, as evidenced by

Plaintiff Olmos’s allegation in his Notice

that he has not had any way to contact them

since October 2009, they apparently do not

have any specific knowledge of what is in the

Complaint or that the Complaint has been

submitted to the Court. Indeed, Plaintiff

Olmos does not even know if they are still

alive. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss

Plaintiffs David Stokes, II; James Walker;

Jose Ulloa; Roger Clark; William McEnany; and

“all others similarly situated” from this

action. If any of these Plaintiffs desire to

pursue a complaint in this Court, they must

file an action on their own behalf.

Doc. 11 at 3-4.

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on March 14, 2011.

See Doc. 21. The First Amended Complaint alleges fifteen counts

for relief and seeks a jury trial, declaratory and injunctive

relief, appointment of a special master, all fees and costs, and

compensatory and punitive monetary damages, with compound

interest.

Case 2:10-cv-02564-GMS Document 70 Filed 01/12/12 Page 2 of 6
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

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Ryan “violated the inmate

compensation requirements of A.R.S. § 31-254(A) and A.R.S.

§ 41-1624.01(A)-(B),” that he “downgraded the skill level

of education aides . . . from skilled to semi-skilled when

an automated system (called TOSS) was rolled out without

changing any of the duties of the position to reflect the

lowered skill level, resulting in a 5¢ per hour decrease in

compensation,” and that he has “continued the ADC’s policy

of not paying kitchen and inmate store workers (who perform

labor or services for Defendants Canteen and Keefe, who are

private contractors) a minimum of $2.00 per hour.”

Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant Ryan “financially

injured” him “by underpaying him 5¢/hour in his current

position as an education aide.”

-3-

In a decision issued May 11, 2011, See Doc. 27, the

Court ordered Defendant Ryan to answer Count VIII, Plaintiff’s

claim that his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were

violated by Defendant Ryan when he “failed to pay either actual

or constructive interest on moneys that have been held in

Plaintiff Olmos’ prisoner spendable account and dedicated

discharge account.” Plaintiff alleges that this amounts to “an

unconstitutional taking of his property.” The Court also

required Defendant Ryan to answer Plaintiff’s due process claim

in Count IX,1 and Plaintiff’s due process claim in Count X. The

Court ordered Defendant Ortega to answer Count XV, Plaintiff’s

claim that Defendant Ortega used the “ADC’s disciplinary policy

to retaliate” against Plaintiff “without a legitimate

penological interest for properly exercising his right to free

speech. See Doc. 27. 

On August 3, 2011, Plaintiff filed an interlocutory

appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals with regard to the

Magistrate Judge’s order at Doc. 31 denying Plaintiff’s motion

to amend his complaint without prejudice.

Case 2:10-cv-02564-GMS Document 70 Filed 01/12/12 Page 3 of 6
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

-4-

Defendants Ryan and Ortega answered the amended

complaint on September 26, 2011. See Doc. 37. On October 4,

2011, the Court issued a scheduling order, requiring that

discovery be completed by April 6, 2012, and that dispositive

motions be filed by June 29, 2012. See Doc. 39.

On November 10, 2011, Plaintiff filed, inter alia, a

motion to stay (Doc. 40), asking the Court to stay all

proceedings until the class has been certified and Plaintiff’s

motion for appointment of counsel has been decided. Plaintiff

also filed an ex parte motion seeking a restraining order (Doc.

41); a motion seeking the appointment of counsel (Doc. 42); a

motion (Doc. 44) asking the Clerk of the Court to serve Doc. 22

(an affidavit by Plaintiff regarding his amended complaint) on

all Defendants; and a motion to supplement (Doc. 45), which

asked the Court to order that Doc. 2, Doc. 3, and Doc. 8 be made

a “part of court record.” Plaintiff also filed a motion seeking

a preliminary injunction (Doc. 46). 

Plaintiff has also filed a motion (Doc. 53) seeking to

certify a class and to appoint counsel.

On December 19, 2011, the Magistrate judge denied

Plaintiff’s motion to stay, Plaintiff’s motion seeking the

appointment of counsel, and Plaintiff’s motion asking the Court

to order the Clerk of the Court to serve the pleading at Doc. 22

on all parties.

In the motion to certify a class and appoint class

counsel at Doc. 53, Plaintiff asks the Court to certify the

following claims as class action claims: Plaintiff’s claim that

the prison fails to supply basic necessities; “Violation of the

Case 2:10-cv-02564-GMS Document 70 Filed 01/12/12 Page 4 of 6
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

-5-

8th Amendment”; “Illegal Assessments Upon Class Members’

Moneys”;“Refusal to Pay Interest on Class Members’ Moneys”;

“Illegal Underpayment of Inmate Workers”;“Illegal Confiscation

of Inmate Property Upon Release”; “Overbroad Mail Policies”.

Plaintiff contends that he represents “all ADC inmates” who are

similarly situated and that the size of the proposed class is

“all ADC inmates”. Plaintiff also seeks appointment of counsel

for the class. Attached to the motion to certify a class are

numerous letters from various counsel from various states

informing Plaintiff that they will not represent him in his suit

regarding the conditions of his confinement.

In response to Plaintiff’s motion seeking class

certification, Defendants argue the motion should be denied

because Plaintiff is pro se and may not represent other inmates.

Defendants also assert the motion is tardy, citing Rule

23(f)(3), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Doc. 56.

Defendants contend that Plaintiff is not entitled to the

appointment of counsel because Plaintiff’s claims are not

extraordinary and because counsel need not be appointed before

a class is certified.

The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the

requirements for certification of a class action. See, e.g., In

re American Med. Sys., Inc., 75 F.3d 1069, 1079 (6th Cir. 1996).

The Court has broad decision whether to certify a case as a

class action. See e.g., Kamm v. California City Dev. Co., 509

F.2d 205, 210 (9th Cir. 1975).

The motion to certify a class should be denied. The

Court has already considered and rejected such a motion. The

Case 2:10-cv-02564-GMS Document 70 Filed 01/12/12 Page 5 of 6
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

-6-

“law of the case” doctrine provides that decisions on legal

issues made in a case “should be followed unless there is

substantially different evidence ... new controlling authority,

or the prior decision was clearly erroneous and would result in

injustice.” Handi Investment Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 653 F.2d

391, 392 (9th Cir. 1981). See also United States v. Park Place

Assoc., Ltd., 563 F.3d 907, 918 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal

quotation marks and citation omitted). 

Accordingly,

IT IS RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion to certify a

class and appoint class counsel (Doc. 53) be denied.

DATED this 11th day of January, 2012.

Case 2:10-cv-02564-GMS Document 70 Filed 01/12/12 Page 6 of 6