Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_13-cv-00550/USCOURTS-almd-2_13-cv-00550-0/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

STANLEY CANTRELL, #141 769, )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-CV-550-TMH

) [WO]

ALABAMA BOARD OF PARDONS )

AND PAROLES, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Before the court is Plaintiff’s request for class certification of this action. The court

construes the request as a motion to certify class under Rule 23, Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. Upon consideration of the motion to certify case as a class action, the court

concludes that this motion is due to be denied.

In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, the pro se inmate Plaintiff challenges the actions of

the Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles in barring him from further parole consideration

pursuant to Ala. Code §§ 15-20(A)-48 and 15-22-27.3, which Plaintiff contends is in

violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause. Plaintiff seeks to represent the interests of other

similarly situated inmates.

Plaintiff cannot adequately represent the interests of the putative class. Among the

requirements which litigants must meet in order to maintain an action as a class action is that

a class representative must “fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” Rule

23(a)(4), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. While a pro se litigant may bring his own

Case 2:13-cv-00550-TMH-TFM Document 16 Filed 09/18/13 Page 1 of 3
claims to federal court, he may not litigate the claims of others. See 28 U.S.C. § 1654. The

1

competence of a layman is “clearly too limited to allow him to risk the rights of others.”

Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir.1975); see also Hummer v. Dalton, 657

F.2d 621, 623 (4 Cir. 1981); Ethnic Awareness Organization v. Gagnon, 568 F.Supp. 1186,

th

1187 (E.D. Wis. 1983); Inmates, Washington County Jail v. England, 516 F. Supp. 132, 144

(E.D. Tenn. 1980). The court also finds that, with respect to the claims presented in the

instant action, the prosecution of separate civil actions will not create a risk of inconsistent

or varying adjudications with respect to any general claims for relief. Rule 23(b)(1)(A),

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See also Inmates, Washington County Jail, 516 F. Supp.

at 144 (denying pro se plaintiffs’ request to certify action as a class action and finding that

“any declaratory relief granted . . . would likely inure to the benefit of other similarly-situated

individuals” even without granting the request to certify case as a class action). Thus,

Plaintiff’s motion to certify this case as a class action is due to be denied.

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that:

1. Plaintiff's motion for class certification (Doc. No. 1) be DENIED; and

2. This case be referred back to the undersigned for further proceedings.

It is further

ORDERED that on or before October 4, 2013 Plaintiff may file an objection to the

28 U.S.C. § 1654 provides:

1

In all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases

personally or by counsel as, by the rules of such courts, respectively, are permitted 

to manage and conduct causes therein.

Case 2:13-cv-00550-TMH-TFM Document 16 Filed 09/18/13 Page 2 of 3
Recommendation. Any objection filed must specifically identify the findings in the

Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which Plaintiff objects. Frivolous, conclusive or

general objections will not be considered by the District Court. Plaintiff is advised that this

Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable.

Failure to file a written objection to the proposed findings and advisements in the

Magistrate Judge's Recommendation shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the

District Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar the party from

attacking on appeal factual findings in the Recommendation accepted or adopted by the

District Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v.

Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d

33 (11th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981, en

banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed

down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981.

Done, this 18 day of September 2013.

th

/s/Terry F. Moorer

TERRY F. MOORER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:13-cv-00550-TMH-TFM Document 16 Filed 09/18/13 Page 3 of 3