Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01799/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01799-13/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDREW CEJAS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1799 LKK GGH P

vs.

LOU BLANAS, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 23, 2007, plaintiff filed an amended complaint styled as a class

action. The court construes the amended complaint to contain a request that this action be

certified as a class action. For the following reasons, this request is denied. 

Named as members of the proposed class are inmates who were pretrial detainees

with plaintiff while he was housed at the Sacramento County Jail. Plaintiff is a non-lawyer

proceeding without counsel. It is well-established that a layperson cannot ordinarily represent

the interests of a class. See 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). Plaintiff cannot

“fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class,” as required by Rule 23(a)(2) of the

Case 2:05-cv-01799-LKK -GGH Document 42 Filed 10/03/07 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

2

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Martin v. Middendorf, 420 F.Supp. 779 (D.C.C. 1976). 

For these reasons, plaintiff’s request to have this action certified as a class action should be

denied.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s request to have this action

certified as a class action, contained in the amended complaint filed August 23, 2007, be denied.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: 10/2/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

cej1799.cla

Case 2:05-cv-01799-LKK -GGH Document 42 Filed 10/03/07 Page 2 of 2