Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00455/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00455-6/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID WAYNE WILSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

LURA MERRITT, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:22-cv-00455-AWI-CDB (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 

DENY MOTION FOR CLASS 

CERTIFICATION

(Doc. 20)

Plaintiff David Wayne Wilson is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On July 19, 2022, the previously assigned magistrate judge issued Findings and 

Recommendations to Deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary and Injunctive Relief. (Doc. 17.) 

On August 8, 2022, Plaintiff filed his objections to the Findings and Recommendations. 

(Doc. 19.) That same date, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 18) and a Motion for 

Certification of Class (Doc. 20). 

On August 24, 2022, the Court issued its Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint 

Counsel. (Doc. 21.) 

On October 6, 2022, this matter was reassigned from the temporarily assigned magistrate 

judge to the undersigned. (Doc. 22.) 

Case 1:22-cv-00455-JLT-CDB Document 24 Filed 01/23/23 Page 1 of 4
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

On December 2, 2022, District Judge Anthony W. Ishii issued an Order Adopting 

Findings and Recommendations to Deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary and Injunctive Relief. 

(Doc. 23.) 

II. DISCUSSION

A. Plaintiff’s Motion

Plaintiff contends his complaint “against B-Facility, California Substance Abuse 

Treatment Facility, exceeds 40 African-Americans, General Population (G.P.) exposed to Valley 

Fever fungus & spores, on-going imminent danger.” (Doc. 20 at 1.) Plaintiff states “Defendants 

CSATF-II denys ‘question of law or fact common to the Class members and plaintiff,’ concerning 

‘exclusion’ from Cocci-1,2/Valley Fever hyperdermic region, soil, dust, area, e.g. Court’s 

ORDER [in] Plata v. Brown.” (Id., underlining in original.) Further, Plaintiff asserts Defendants 

deny “’Typicality’ requirements of plaintiff’s grievance ‘Group Class’ claims involve a ‘common 

element of fact or law’ or ‘the same legal or remedial theory’ for all Class at B-Facility 

discriminated against.” (Id. at 1-2.) Plaintiff states he sought “primary Relief of declaratory and 

injunctive Relief” in his complaint. (Id. at 2.) Further, Plaintiff states he does not meet the 

qualified counsel requirement. (Id.) Finally, Plaintiff states “[t]he Attorney representatives for 

‘Group Class,’ did nothing to Remove Plaintiff and Class after sending Letters, and state Court 

filings. Therefore inadequately represented Class. Therefore Rule 23(d) ORDERS IN CONDUCT 

OF ACTION, required for Certification of Class.” (Id.) 

B. Legal Standards and Analysis

A party requesting class certification must demonstrate that “(1) the class is so numerous 

that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the 

class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses 

of the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the 

class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). As the party requesting class certification, Plaintiff must meet these 

four requirements.

//

Case 1:22-cv-00455-JLT-CDB Document 24 Filed 01/23/23 Page 2 of 4
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

3

Plaintiff is not an attorney and is proceeding without counsel.1 As a prisoner proceeding 

pro se, Plaintiff is unable to satisfy the required prerequisites. Specifically, the fourth prerequisite. 

“It is well established that pro se prisoner plaintiffs are unable to fairly represent and 

adequately protect the interests of [a] class,” as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). Pickett v. 

Brown, No. C-11-0445-TEH, 2011 WL 3954553, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (citations omitted). “A 

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

Russell v. United States, 308 F.2d 78, 79 (9th Cir. 1962) (citation omitted). It “is plain error to 

permit [an] imprisoned litigant who is unassisted by counsel to represent his fellow inmates in a 

class action.” Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975); Lile v. Simmons, 143 

F.Supp.2d 1267, 1277 (D. Kan. 2001) (inmate not adequate class representative where inmate 

was a pro se litigant and could not represent other pro se plaintiffs in federal court); Wilson v. 

Mercado, No. 1:22-cv-00278-ADA-SAB (PC), 2022 WL 5235405, *2 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2022) 

(“Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and this case therefore cannot be certified as a class action unless 

counsel is appointed”). 

In fact, Plaintiff acknowledges he does not meet this prerequisite in his motion. (Doc. 20 

at 2.) And a class action must satisfy all of the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P 23(a) and at least 

one of the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b). Blake v. Arnett, 663 F.2d 906, 912 (9th Cir. 

1981). 

Hence, even assuming without finding that Plaintiff met the first three prerequisites for 

class certification—numerosity, commonality and typicality—Plaintiff cannot meet all 

prerequisites because he cannot fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. 

III. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED Plaintiff’s motion for 

class certification (Doc. 10) be DENIED.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the district judge assigned to 

1 Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel was denied by Magistrate Judge Gary 

S. Austin on August 24, 2022. (Doc. 21.) Judge Austin found Plaintiff was unable to demonstrate 

exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel. (Id. at 2-4.) 

Case 1:22-cv-00455-JLT-CDB Document 24 Filed 01/23/23 Page 3 of 4
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

this case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days of the date of service of these 

Findings and Recommendations, a party may file written objections with the Court. The 

document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver of 

rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. 

Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 20, 2023 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-00455-JLT-CDB Document 24 Filed 01/23/23 Page 4 of 4