NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 09a0387n.06 Nos. 08-1222, 08-1273, 08- 1278 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

MI CHAEL

DAVI D GARRI SON; E R I C BO YL AN; RO B ERT WAL KE R, Pla int if fs -A pp e lla nts , and J ASON DIXON; GREGORY H UL L , Pla int if fs , v. MI CH I GAN DE PAR TM EN T O F CO RRE CTI ON S; PATRI CI A CARUSO, MD OC Direc tor, in her individual and officia l capa cities, De fe nd ants -A

pp e lle e s. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL F RO M THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR

TH E WE STE RN DI STRI CT OF MI CHI GAN

B EF OR E: B OG GS, Chi e f Jud g e ; and GI L MA N a nd RO GE RS, C ir c uit

Judg e s. ROGERS, Ci rcuit Judge. Michae l G arr ison, Er ic Boy lan, and Robert Walker appea l from an orde r dismissing their c ivil rights complaint. Gar rison and four other Michig an prisoners f iled a joint pro se ac tion in dis trict court a lleg ing that prison officia ls had plac ed unnec essar y restric tions on the prisoner s’ re ligious pra ctice in violation of the Relig ious L and Use and Institut ionalized Persons Act (RLUI PA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1–cc-5. T he prisoner s reque sted, and we re de nied, appointed counsel. The district c ourt later discovere d that Gar rison was filing paper s that had bee nNos. 08-1222, 08-1273, 08-1278

Ga rri so n v . M ic h. De p’ t of Cor r.

- 2 - previously

signe d in blank by

hi s co -p l aintiffs. The c o-plaintiffs lef t the signe d, blank pape rs for Ga rr iso n to us e in c on du c tin g the lit ig a tio n. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt re g ard e d th e us e of

pa pe rs sig ne d in bla nk a s f ra ud

. Th e cou rt di smi sse d th e a c tio n w ith out pr e jud ic e and

a pp lie d v ari ou s sa

nc tio ns . Be cause counsel will only be appointed in a

civil case in exceptional circumstanc es, the district cour t

a c te d w ith in i ts d isc re tio n in de nyinga

pp ointme nt o f c ouns e l. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt a lso a c te d w ith in its discretion when it dismissed the case without pr ejudice due to the improper nature of some of the fi lin g s. Ho we ve r, we va c a te the dis mis sa l ord e r to the e xten t tha t it ap pli e s f ur the r s anc tio ns be c a

us e the re cord doe s not sufficiently indicate that Ga

rrison and his co- plaintiffs ac ted in bad fa ith. I. Gar rison and the other

appellants in this cons o l i dated c ase a re pr isoners in the Michig an Depa rtment of C o rr ec t i o n s (MDOC) pr ison sy stem. I n Dec ember 2006, the appe llants and two prisoners who are no longe r parties to this litigation filed a complaint ag ainst MDOC and its director Patricia Car

uso. The complaint alleg ed numerous violations of RLUI PA. The district court a llowed the plaintiffs to proce ed in forma pauper is, paying the $350 fili n g fe e in i nstallments. The court dis mis se d o ne pla int if

f w ith out pr e

jud ic e fo r f

a ili ngto m a ke his ini tia l pa y me nt. Ga rr iso n a nd his c o- pla int if

fs a lle g e d in

the ir c omp la int

that MD OC wa s vio latin g RLUI PA by pla c ing re str ic tio ns , with out any su bs tanti a l or

c omp e lli ngre a so n f

or do ingso , o n th e ir

a bil ity to fo llo w the Nativ e Am e ri c an Tr a dit ion a l Way s re lig ion . T he pla int if fs a lle g e d, a mon g oth e r t

hin g s, that MDOC would not allow them to possess cer tain innocuous relig ious objects and he rbs and that MD OC pr e ve nte d th e m f rom eng a g ingin r e lig iou s g a the ri ng s and c e re mon ie s e xce pt i n c e rt a inNos. 08-1222, 08-1273, 08-1278

Ga rri so n v . M ic h. De p’ t of Cor r.

- 3 - lim ite d c ir c ums tanc e s. The plaintiffs moved to c ertify a class of all simil arly situated followers of their re ligion. The motion ra ised the possibilit y that the cour

t would appoint counsel and c ited prec edent in which pr o se litiga nts were allowed to proc eed a s class re prese ntatives. The court denied the motion, finding that pro se litiga

nts may not act as class repr esentatives. The court did not address a ppointment of

c ouns e l. Th e pla int if

fs the n f ile d a mot ion e xplic itl y re qu e sti nga

pp ointe d c ouns e l, n oti ngthat th e ir motion for class ce rtification had be en denie d beca use of their lack of counsel. The plaintiffs cited

se ve ra l f a c tor s to su

pp or t the ir re qu e st, inc lud ing the me ri t of the ir c a se , th e c omp le xity

of the iss ue s, their indige nce, the fa ct that three out of four of them wer e uneduc ated, a

nd the fa ct that one plaintiff had alr eady

been tran s fe rr ed to another f acility , thus making c ommunication about their common suit difficult. The court, howeve r, deter mined that appointment of counsel was not ne cessa ry to a proper prese ntation of plaintiffs’ c ase. On the same da

y that th e pla int if

fs mov e d to c e rt if

y a c la ss, the c ourt

orde re d th e c le rk

to

serve the plaintiffs’ c omplaint on MDOC. Having revie wed the c omplaint to determine that it was not frivolous, malicious, or subject to dismiss al for failure to state a claim, the cour t ordere d MDOC to reply . Both sides filed va rious motions and responses, and in Dece mber 2007 e ach side filed a mot ion fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt. Pla int i f f D i xo na b s c o n d e d f r o mp ar o l e i nO c t o b e r

2 0 0 7

. M D O C l e ar

n e d t h i s f a c ts h o rt ly afte r the motions for summary judgme nt were fi l ed and moved to strike the plaintiffs’ motion. MDOC argued that F eder al Rule of Civil P roce dure 11 require s pro se plaintiffs to sig n their motionsNos. 08-1222, 08-1273, 08-1278

Ga rri so n v . M ic h. De p’ t of Cor r.

- 4 - and that Dixon’s purported sig nature on the pl aintiffs’ Dece mber 26, 2007, motion must have bee n forg ed. Garrison re sponded to MDOC’s motion by explaining that, af

ter plaintiffs lea

rned that Dix on would be tra

nsfer red to a nother fa cility , plaintiffs other than Gar rison signe d sever al pape rs in b lank and

a uth or ize d G arr iso n to us e the pa pe rs to f ile a ll n e c e ssa

ry do c ume nts wi th t

he c ourt
. Th e re sp on se g ave tw o re a so ns : f ir st, pla int if

fs anti c ipate d th a t r e ta liator y tr a ns fe rs wo uld

re su lt i n all four plaintiffs’ being ho u s ed i n s ep arate fa cilities, making it impossible to comply with filing de a dli ne s, and

se c on d, Ga

rr ison was the o nly

on e of the fo ur wi th s uf fi c ie nt l e g a l kn ow le dg e to purs ue the c la im. The district cour

t reg arde d the us e of documents si g ned in bl ank as a “ruse ” and a

“bra zen fra ud on the cour

t.” Ga rri so n v . M ic h. De p’ t of Cor r. , No. 1: 0 6-cv- 869, 2008 WL 351652, at *1 (W.D. Mich. Fe b. 7, 2008). The court stated t hat federa l law prohibit ed Garrison fr om repre senting the other pla intiffs “either direc tly or throug h the subterf

ug e of pr esig ned pape rs,” but instead require d plaintiffs either to pr ocee d pro se or t hroug h licensed c ounsel. Id. The c ourt also stated that Gar rison was on notice that he could not r epre sent the others, beca use the court wrote in its denial of cla ss cer

tification that a pro se l itigant may not act in a re prese ntative ca pacity

. Id. Recog nizi ng that Gar rison, Boy

lan, and Walker

wer e all now house d in se parate fac iliti es and that Dixon was no longe r in th e p r is o n s y s te m a t a ll , th e c o u rt d e te r mi n e d th a t it mu s t d is mi s s B o yla n , Wa lk e r , and Dix on’s claims without prejudice , beca use the c ourt was unable to te ll whic h claims repr esente d the voluntary submissi ons of those plaintiffs and which wer e the submissions of Garr ison a lone. Id. at *2 . T he c ourt

or de re d that the pla int if

fs , a s a sanc tio n f

or the ir c on du c t, w ou ld n ot r e c e ive any c re ditNos. 08-1222, 08-1273, 08-1278

Ga rri so n v . M ic h. De p’ t of Cor r.

- 5 - in future a ctions for fe es alre ady paid in conjunction with the dismissed action. Id. at *2 n.1. The c ourt also dismissed Garr ison’s claim without prejudice a s a sanc tion for fra ud. Id. at *2

. I n a dd iti on , the c ourt

iss ue d a pe rm ane nt i nju

nc tio n p re ve nti ngGa

rr iso n f ro m pr oc e e din g a s a co-pla int i ff or interveningin any case in that court. Id. Th e c ourt re qu ir e d th a t G arr iso n d isc los e

on the fi rs t pa g e of

any su bs e qu e nt c omp la int

wh e the r h e wa s r e a sse rt ingany of the tw e nty -s ix claims from the instant ca se. Id. Th e c ourt a lso pr oh ibi te d G arr iso n f ro m pr oceed in g in f

or ma pauper is in any

future a ction that rea sserted a ny of the twe nty -six claims. Id. All pending motions

wer e dismissed as moot. Id. Ga rr iso n, B oylan, and

Wal ke r a pp e a l th e de nia l of

a pp ointe d c ouns e l, the dis mis sa l of the ir

case , and the other

sanctions. MDOC dec lined to file an opposingbrief. II. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt

did not abu se its dis c re tio n b y de nyingGa

rr iso n a nd his c o- pla int if

fs ’ motion to appoint counsel or by dismiss ing the case without prejudice. Ho we v er , we va cate the other sanc tions im posed upon the plaintiffs. A. Al tho ug h th is c a se argua

bly pr e se nte d an a

pp ro pr iate sit

uatio n f or a pp ointme nt o f c ouns e l, the trial court did not abuse its discr etion in de clining to do so. Gar rison and hi s co -pl aintiffs

s u b m i t t e d t h e i r r e qu e s tf o r c o u n s e l a f

t e r o n e o f t h e i r nu mb e r w a s t r an s f

e r r e d t o a d i f f e r e n tf a c i l i t y. Although continuing their joint litigation under those cir cumstance s prese nted difficulties, Ga rrison and his co-pla intiffs had no rig ht to appointed counsel in this civil case . Se e Re ne e r v . S e we ll , 975Nos. 08-1222, 08-1273, 08-1278

Ga rri so n v . M ic h. De p’ t of Cor r.

- 6 - F .2 d 2 58 , 2 61 (6 th Cir

. 19 92 ). Any a pp ointme nt of c ouns e l wa s a t the dis c re tio n of the dis tr ic t c ourt
. Id. When consideringwhether to appoint counsel, a c ourt should consider the ty pe of the case , the complexit y of the issues, and the litig ants’ ability to repre sent themselves. Lavado v. Keohane , 992 F .2 d 6 01 , 6 06 (6 th Cir . 199 3)

. Th e pr e c e de nt o f t his c ir c uit su pp or ts a pp ointme nt o f c ouns e l f

or c ivi l litigants only

in exceptional circumstanc es. Id. A district court’ s d ecision not to appoint counsel is not rever sable unless it results in “funda ment al u n fairness impinging on due proc ess rig hts.” Rene er , 975 F.2d at 261. The denia l of counsel he re doe s not involve the level of injustice r equire d fo r r e ve rs a l. B. Di smi ssa l w ith out pr e

jud ic e fo r the re a so ns g ive n by the dis tr ic t c ourt a lso wa s no t an a bu se of dis c re tio n. As the dis tr ic t c ourt no te d, the pla int if

fs ’ use of do c ume nts sig ne d in bla nk pr e ve nts the cour t from deter

mining whe ther al l t he plaintiffs subscr ibed to a par ticular filingor whe ther Gar rison acte d on his own authority . The fa ct that Gar rison filed documen t s afte r plaintiff Dixon left the prison sy stem demonstrates that he was not mere ly assis t i n g his co-plaintiffs pro se but instead wa s actingat his own discre tion on their behalf. Whil e his co-pla intiffs may have a uthorized these a ctions, that authorization was not p roper outside of an a ctual attorne y -client re lationship. Tw e nty -e ig ht U .S. C. § 16 54 a llo ws pa rties to p le a d th e ir

ow n c a se s o r t o a c t thro ug h c ouns e l. Pr ov idi ngdo c ume nts sig ne d in bla nk to an un lic e ns e d r e pr e se ntativ e imp ro pe rl y c ir c umv e nts thi s require ment, althoug h plaintiffs may sign doc uments that have be en pre pare d by another inmate. C.Nos. 08-1222, 08-1273, 08-1278

Ga rri so n v . M ic h. De p’ t of Cor r.

- 7 - The district cour

t, however , imposed overly burdensome hurdles t o future litig ation. Section 1654’s proscr iption of unlicensed pra ctice notwithstanding , prec edent supports limited inmate-toinm a te le g a l a ssi sta

nc e . Wh ile a ssi sta

nc e do e s n ot e xten d to re pr e se ntatio n o f o the r i nmate s in c ourt , the authority

which the district cour

t cited for this limit consisted of ca ses involving pr o se litigation

o u ts id e th e p r is o nc o n text , see Lat tanzio v . CO MT A , 481 F.3d 137, 139 ( 2d Cir. 2007), and unrepr esente d inmate litigants serving as class repr esentatives in class ac tion lawsuits, see Ziegler v. Mic higan , 59 F. App’ x 622, 624 (6th Cir. 2003). This authority fails t o addre ss the specific issues raised by the pre sent situation. B e c a us e of the pa rt ic ula r d if fi c ult ie s th a t in mate s f

a c e in o bta ini ngthe a ssi sta nc e of c ouns e l, the case law addre ssing lay leg al assistance in the prison context g ener ally supports the prac tice. The Sup re me Court

ha s h e ld that “ un le ss a

nd un til the State pr ov ide s so me re a so na ble a lte rn a tiv e to assist inmates in the prepa ration of pe titions for post-conviction relief , it may not validly

enfor ce a regulation

. . . barr ing inmate s from fur nishing such a ssistance to other pr isoners.” J oh ns on v . A v e ry , 393 U.S. 483, 490 (1969). The Court rea soned that “if suc h prisoners c annot have the assistance of a ‘ja ilhouse lawy er,’ their possibly valid constitutional claims will never be hear d in any court.” Id. at 487 (quoting the di strict court’s findings). Thus the Court g rounded the rig ht to rece ive assistance from a ja ilhouse lawy er in the pr isoner’s r ight of acc ess to the cour

ts. Courts have acte d to c urtail the actions of unscrupulous jailhouse lawy ers whose ser vices do their fe llow inma t es m ore ha rm than g ood, but those limi tations were response s to abuse, not attempts to restrict unlicense d jailhouse prac tice g ener ally

. One district cour t in Miss ouri enjoinedNos. 08-1222, 08-1273, 08-1278

Ga rri so n v . M ic h. De p’ t of Cor r.

- 8 - an inmate f

rom providing leg al servic es af ter findingthat he fa iled to follow court rule s and proce dures, c harg ed fe es, used other inmates’ lawsuits primarily as vehic les to advanc e his own g rieva nces, filed actions of behalf of people who had not conse nted to his involvement, and buried his clients’ straig htforwa

rd cla ims in page s of ot herw ise frivolous materia l. Gree n v. W yrick, 428 F. Supp. 732, 736-40 (W.D. Mo. 1976). This ty pe of protection i s not neede d here . Although the district court indicate d that i t acted to protect the r ights of G arr ison’s co-plaintiffs, the rec ord ind ic a te s th a t G arr iso n w a s a dv oc a tin g on be ha lf of his c o- pla int if

fs a s w e ll a s him se lf

, a se rv ic e to wh ic h th e y

mig ht n ot o the rw ise have ha d a c c e ss. The district cour

t had authority to regulate Garrison’s conduct of the jailhouse litigation and to r equire that eac h plaintiff sig n the filing s after their pre paration, but the recor d lacks e vidence that Gar rison an d h is co-plaintiffs a cted in bad f aith or ag ainst the instructions of the cour t when they used pape rs sig ned in b l an k

. T he re cord doe s not appea r to indicate that Garr ison and his coplaintiffs wer e af

firma t i v el y

attempting to de ceive the cour t. Rather, they

may have be en trying to adapt their litig ation eff orts to circumstanc es that m i gh t arise. F ace d with the possibili ty

that they would not be able to f

ile court documents in time if their amanue nsis was in a differ ent prison (thoug h they could have sough t m o re t i m e under the rules on a ccount of that

c ir c ums tanc e ), the pla int if fs de vis e d wh at se e me d to the m ( a lbe it w ro ng ly ) t o b e a re a so na ble plan—sig ning a number of paper s in bla nk and leaving them with the inmate who was f unctioning as jailhouse counse l. Garr ison and his co-plaintiffs a lso notified the court of t he diffic ulties they would fac e in ca

rry ing out their

litigation af

ter one of them wa s transfe rre d. The c ourt conc l udedNos. 08-1222, 08-1273, 08-1278

Ga rri so n v . M ic h. De p’ t of Cor r.

- 9 - that this case did not pre sent the exceptional circ umstan ce s t h at wo uld justi fy appointment of counsel, a nd the plaintiffs ca

rried out the ir plan to use the paper s they had sig ned while they

wer e all housed in the same f

acility . Absent some explicit noti ce to the pa rties that their a ctions were improper, sa

nctions were not warr anted to the e x tent they would unduly

burden le g i timate future litigation. The district c ourt based its dec ision to i mpose sanctions on the fa ct that the par ties were on notice that Ga

rrison could not ac t as t h ei r re prese ntative, but such notice doe s not appea r in the

rec ord. The or der to whic h the dis t ri ct court re fer red did not spec ifically

prohibit Garr ison from repr esentinghis co-plaintiffs. The order addre ssed a differ ent matter. Early in the case , the plaintiffs

mov e d to c e rt if

y a c la ss, and

the c ourt sa id t hat unr e pr e se nte d p ri so ne rs su c h a s th e mse lve s c ou ld prese nt only

their own claims, not the claims of other prisone rs who would make up the class. The court said in that orde r: I t is we ll e sta

bli sh e d th a t a pr o se lit ig ant may re pr e se nt h ims e lf

on his ow n c la ims , b u t m ay n o t a c t i n a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e c a p a c i t y . 2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 65 4; s ee Cavanaugh ex re l. Cav an au

gh v . Ca rd

ina l Lo c al S

c h. Di st. , 409 F.3d 753, 755 (6th Cir. 2005). The Sixth C ir c uit

ha s r e pe a te dly

he ld t hat pr o s e pr ison er lit ig ants are ina de qu a te c la ss repr esentatives. See, e .g. , Ziegler v. Michigan , 59 F. App’x 622, 624 (6th Cir. 2003); Pa la st y v. Hawk

, 1 5 F . App ’x 19 7, 20 0 ( 6th Cir . 2 00 1) ; Marr v. Mic higan , N o. 95-1794, 1996 WL205582, at *1 (6th C ir. Apr. 25, 1996) (“[A] n imprisoned litigant who is not repre sented by counsel may not repr esent a class of inmate s beca

use the p ri s o n er ca n n o t ad eq u at el y re p re s en t t h e i n t er es t s o f t h e c l as s . ”) (c i t i n g Oxe ndine v. W illiams , 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975) ). Ac cording ly , plaintiffs’ motion for class ce rtification [] is DENI ED. The c ourt’s languag e and most of its cited a uthority ref

er to the propriety

of pro se class litigation,

no t to the c on tou

rs and lim itatio ns of

inm a te -t o- inm a te le g a l a ssi sta nc e . T he c ourt ’s state me nt d idNos. 08-1222, 08-1273, 08-1278

Ga rri so n v . M ic h. De p’ t of Cor r.

- 10 - no t amou nt t o a n in str uc tio n th a t G arr iso n mu st l imi t his re pr e se ntatio n of the g ro up , ev e n if the fi rs t sentenc e of the portion quoted above should ha ve cause d Gar

rison to inf

er that limi tation. I ndeed, when MDO C acc used the plaintiffs of submitt ing a

forg ed sig nature , Gar

rison rea dily

explained that he wa s using doc uments signe d in blank without appear ing to r ealize that his action s m i gh t have contravened a

n ear lier cour

t order. Ne ith e r F e de ra l Rule of

Civ il Pr oc e dure 11 no r t

he dis tr ic t c ourt ’s inh e re nt p ow e rs su pp or ts the sanc tions im posed by the district court to the e x tent that th ey u nduly burden f uture litigation. F e de ra l Ru le of

Civ il Pr oc e dure 11 re qu ir e s th a t a pr o se pla int if f s ig n a ny do c ume nt s ub mitte d to the cour t as ce rtification that the document is not being submitt ed for a n improper pur

pose and that the document’ s leg al claims and fac tual alleg ations are war rante d. The rule also empower s the court to “impose an a

ppropriate sanction” on a party who violates the rule . Fe d. R. Civ. P . 11(c) . “[T] he centr al purpose of

Rule 11 is to deter base les s filings in district cour t . . . .” Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp. , 496 U.S. 384, 393 (1990). Be cause there is no indication that Garr ison and his coplaintiffs submitted ba seless claims to the court, Rule 11 does not justify the sanc tions im posed her e. Whil e the de fer ence owed to the district cour t is high whe n it acts under its inhere nt powers, the sanctions that the cour

t imposed would require a fin d i n g o f fra ud or of willful disobedienc e of a court orde r, see First Bank of Marietta v. H artford Underwrit ers Ins. Co. , 30 7 F .3 d 50 1, 51 6- 17 (6 th Cir. 2002), neither of

which is prese nt here

. Although the district court was justified in taking some c orre ctive ac tion when it learne d that Gar rison had filed pa

pers that his pro se co-pla intiffs had not spec ifically endorse d and that one ofNos. 08-1222, 08-1273, 08-1278

Ga rri so n v . M ic h. De p’ t of Cor r.

- 11 - t h e p l ai n t i ff

s wa s n o l o n g e r i n t h e c u s t o dy o f t h e M i ch i gan p ri s o ns y s t em , s an ct i o n s p o s i n g h i gh barr iers to re filing w ere unwar rante d. The district cour t aptly noted that the plaintiffs’ use of documents signe d in bla

nk raised questions a s to the leg itimacy of the filing s; however , the cour t’s eff ort to maintain the integ rity of t he process need not ere ct barriers that dr amatica lly decr ease the lik e lih oo d th a t th e pr iso ne rs ’ c la ims wi ll e ve r b e he ard on the me ri ts. Of c ourse plaintiffs in this case are now clea rly o n notice, and a

ny future use by

them of documents pre -sig ned in blank would be sa nctionable. III . F or the fo re g oin g re a so ns , th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s or de r d e nyinga pp ointment of

c ouns e l is AFF I RMED. The district cour t’s order dismiss ing the case without pr ejudice is AF FI RMED. The order to the extent that it imposes additional sanctions is VACATED.