Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-07537/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-07537-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gavin Newsome
Defendant
Andre Lavar Wells
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDRE LAVAR WELLS,

Plaintiff,

v.

GAVIN NEWSOME,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-07537-EMC 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Docket No. 1

This case was opened when Andre Wells, a California prisoner, filed a pro se “motion to 

enterviene in order to inforce Coleman stipulations and to protect mental health patients rights.” 

Docket No. 1 (errors in source). The first page of the filing listed the parties above and did not 

have a case number. In an effort to protect Mr. Wells’ rights, the document was treated as an 

attempt to open a new case and was filed. The clerk notified Mr. Wells that he needed to file a 

complaint on the Court’s civil rights complaint form and needed to pay the civil filing fee or file 

an in forma pauperis application. Docket Nos. 2, 3. Mr. Wells then filed a document entitled 

“this is and was a motion as a class action member not a separate claim,” in which he stated that 

he was trying to obtain relief in the Coleman and Clark class actions already on file rather than to 

commence a separate case.1 Docket No. 5. 

A prisoner may not bring a separate case to compel prison officials to comply with the 

orders or remedial plans in the Clark and Coleman cases. Rather, he must pursue his claims in 

Clark or Coleman by urging further action through the class representatives and attorneys in those 

class actions. See Pride v. Correa, 719 F.3d 1130, 1133 (9th Cir. 2013) (holding that individual 

1 Coleman v. Wilson, E. D. Cal. Case No. 2:90-cv-0520-KJM-DB, is a class action in the Eastern 

District of California concerning the inmates with serious mental disorders. See Coleman v. 

Wilson, 912 F. Supp. 1282 (E.D. Cal. 1995). Clark v. California, N. D. Cal. Case No. 96-1486

CRB, is a class action in this district concerning the treatment of inmates with developmental 

disabilities who are under the control of the California Department of Corrections. 

Case 3:19-cv-07537-EMC Document 10 Filed 01/27/20 Page 1 of 2
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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

suits for injunctive and equitable relief may be dismissed when they duplicate an existing class 

action’s allegations and prayer for relief); see also McNeil v. Guthrie, 945 F.2d 1163, 1165 (10th 

Cir. 1991) (“Individual suits for injunctive and equitable relief from alleged unconstitutional 

prison conditions cannot be brought where there is an existing class action” involving the same 

subject matter); Gillespie v. Crawford, 858 F.2d 1101, 1103 (5th Cir. 1988) (en banc) (“Individual 

members of the class and other prisoners may assert any equitable or declaratory claims they have, 

but they must do so by urging further actions through the class representative and attorney, 

including contempt proceedings, or by intervention in the class action.”). 

Upon review of Mr. Wells’ motion to intervene and his letter filed December 2, 2019 

(Docket Nos. 1 and 5), it is clear that Mr. Wells intended to file his document in Clark and/or 

Coleman, and not to commence a new case. This was the correct course of action, although 

pursuant to an order in Coleman, he may not file a pro se document directly in that case but rather 

only through plaintiffs’ counsel. Docket No. 4080 in Coleman v. Brown, E. D. Cal. Case No. 

2:90-cv-00520-KJM-DB (“any documents raising specific mental health care concerns shall be 

forwarded to plaintiffs’ counsel”). Mr. Wells therefore should send his filing (or otherwise 

communicate his concerns) to plaintiffs’ counsel in Coleman by mailing it to Donald H. Specter, 

Prison Law Office, 1917 Fifth Street, Berkeley, CA 94710. Mr. Specter also is class counsel in 

the Clark case, so Mr. Wells should consider taking the same approach in the Clark case, i.e., send 

his filing (or communicate his concerns) to Mr. Specter.

For the foregoing reasons, the motion to intervene is DENIED without prejudice to Mr. 

Wells seeking relief in the Coleman and Clark cases as stated above. Docket No. 1. This action is 

DISMISSED because it was opened in error. No filing fee is due so no in forma pauperis

application needs to be filed. The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 27, 2020

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-07537-EMC Document 10 Filed 01/27/20 Page 2 of 2