Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00470/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00470-2/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICKY L. THOMAS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SHIRLEY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:23-cv-00470-BAM (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO FILE 

CLASS ACTION CIVIL SUIT WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE

(ECF No. 10)

Plaintiff Ricky L. Thomas (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

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

The original action was filed together with seventeen other inmates, and was severed into 

individual proceedings on April 5, 2023. (ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff was ordered to proceed as the 

sole Plaintiff in this case and to file a signed complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal. (Id.)

On April 25, 2023, Plaintiff filed a signed first amended complaint, (ECF No. 11), 

together with a motion to file a class action, (ECF No. 10). In his motion, Plaintiff argues that the 

initial case was intended to be filed as a class action civil complaint, as is his first amended 

complaint. (ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff argues that the—now former—plaintiffs in this action have 

demonstrated fulfillment of the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), and 

requests that the cases not be severed and the Court allow the filing of a class action. Plaintiff 

further contends that if the Court severs the plaintiffs, they will be prejudiced because they cannot 

Case 1:23-cv-00470-JLT-BAM Document 12 Filed 05/01/23 Page 1 of 3
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

proceed by way of a class action, they will be prejudiced by the requirement that they exhaust 

administrative remedies under the PLRA, and will then be a victim of another federal civil rights 

violation. (Id.)

Plaintiff’s request is denied. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) provides that a class 

action may only be brought if (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.

Plaintiff is not an attorney and is proceeding without counsel. It is well-established that a 

layperson cannot ordinarily represent the interests of a class. See Smith v. Schwarzenegger, 393 

Fed. Appx. 518, 519 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing McShane v. United States, 366 F.2d 286, 288 (9th Cir. 

1966)). A non-attorney proceeding pro se may bring his own claims to court, but may not 

represent others. Johns v. Cty. of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1997); C.E. Pope Equity 

Tr. v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987) (non-attorney has a right to appear pro se 

on his/her own behalf, but “has no authority to appear as an attorney for others”). Therefore, it is 

inappropriate for Plaintiff to proceed as class counsel, and the request is denied, without 

prejudice.

Finally, the Court notes that it appears that the motion is signed by an individual other 

than Plaintiff. (Compare ECF No. 10, p. 3, with ECF No. 11, p. 5.) While the Court has 

addressed the merits of the motion as a one-time exception, Plaintiff is advised that because he is 

proceeding pro se (without an attorney), both the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this 

Court’s Local Rules require that all filed pleadings, motions, and papers be signed by the party 

personally if the party is unrepresented. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a); Local Rule 131(b). Therefore, all 

future filings submitted to the Court must include Plaintiff’s own signature, as well as the date the 

filing was submitted to prison authorities for mailing. Future filings that do not include 

Plaintiff’s own signature may be rejected as improperly filed.

///

///

Case 1:23-cv-00470-JLT-BAM Document 12 Filed 05/01/23 Page 2 of 3
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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to file a class action civil suit, (ECF No. 10), is DENIED, without 

prejudice; and

2. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint will be screened in due course.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 28, 2023 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-00470-JLT-BAM Document 12 Filed 05/01/23 Page 3 of 3