Case Name: Travis Roy BASS, et al., Plaintiffs, Timothy Justin Tacy, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Susan BENTON, Highlands County Sheriff Office, Defendantt-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-01-14
Citations: 408 F. App'x 298
Docket Number: No. 10-12291
Parties: Travis Roy BASS, et al., Plaintiffs, Timothy Justin Tacy, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Susan BENTON, Highlands County Sheriff Office, Defendantt-Appellee.
Judges: Before BARKETT, HULL and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 408
Pages: 298–299

Head Matter:
Travis Roy BASS, et al., Plaintiffs, Timothy Justin Tacy, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Susan BENTON, Highlands County Sheriff Office, Defendantt-Appellee.
No. 10-12291
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Jan. 14, 2011.
Timothy Justin Tacy, Sr., Sebring, FL, pro se.
Highlands County Jai Warden, Inmate Trust Fund, Sebring, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Bill McCollum, Office of the Attorney General, Miami, FL, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before BARKETT, HULL and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Timothy Tacy, a former prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 class action civil rights complaint against Susan Benton, the Sheriff of Highlands County, Florida and the Sheriffs Office Detention Bureau for violations of the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. On appeal, Tacy argues that Benton, acting under the color of state law, deprived the prisoners and them friends and family of rights protected under federal law and the Constitution in restricting the type, size, and content of the mail prisoners received while incarcerated in the Highlands County jail. Tacy argues that no part of his class action complaint is frivolous, and therefore, should not be dismissed. Lastly, Tacy argues that because § 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 indicates that Congress assigned federal courts with the role of protecting constitutional rights, we must reverse and remand the case to the district court for trial.
We review de novo the district court's dismissal of Tacy's § 1983 action. Grayson v. King, 460 F.3d 1328, 1336 n. 5 (11th Cir.2006). We have interpreted 28 U.S.C. § 1654, the general provision permitting parties to proceed pro se, as providing "a personal right that does not extend to the representation of the interests of others." Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 873 (llth Cir.2008). We have affirmed the dismissal of the portion of a prisoner's complaint seeking relief on behalf of fellow inmates. Massimo v. Henderson, 468 F.2d 1209, 1210 (5th Cir.1972); see Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir.1975) (holding that it is plain error to permit an imprisoned litigant who is unassisted by counsel to represent his fellow inmates in a class action).
Following the holding of Massimo, Tacy may not seek relief on behalf of his fellow inmates. 468 F.2d at 1210. Because Tacy may not represent the plaintiffs in a class action suit, the district court properly dismissed Tac^s § 1983 complaint. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.