Opinion ID: 687977
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Effect of Plyler on Claims in Paragraph 38, Page 17

Text: 23 In May 1982, South Carolina state inmates brought an action challenging the living conditions in the state's prisons. In February 1985, the district court issued an order certifying a class action with the class consisting of adult prisoners committed to the [South Carolina Department of Corrections] and those who would be committed in the future. Plyler v. Leeke, No. 3:82-876-2, 1986 WL 84459, at  3 (D.S.C. Mar. 26, 1986) (unpublished). Eventually the parties entered a consent decree which was approved by Judge Houck of the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. Slezak does not dispute that he is a plaintiff class member in the Plyler consent decree. 24 Contrary to his argument, the claims in paragraph 38 of the proposed amended complaint are covered by the Plyler consent decree. A class member generally is bound by the result of the class action and cannot prosecute his claims separately. Golfe v. Menke, 672 F.2d 702, 704 (8th Cir.1982). However, where a class action adjudicates only claims for injunctive relief, a class member may not be barred from pursuing damages claims unless he was warned that he was required to litigate those claims as part of the class action. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 847 (4th Cir.1985). 25 In this case, the consent decree expressly states that class members may individually pursue damages claims as well as claims for injunctive relief which do not involve the conditions of confinement covered by the consent decree. Because all of Slezak's claims in paragraph 38 are covered by the consent decree, he is barred from individually pursuing injunctive relief. To the extent that Slezak seeks damages, he is not entitled to relief because he fails to assert that he himself has been harmed by the violations he alleges. Inmates v. Owens, 561 F.2d 560, 562-63 (4th Cir.1977).