(PC) Justus v. Doerer

[2] 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [5] 6 ROBERT JUSTUS, No. 1:25-cv-00138-JLT-SAB (PC) 7 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING MOTION TO CREATE A 8 v. CLASS ACTION BE DENIED 9 J. DOERER, et al., (ECF No. 9) 10 Defendants. [11] 12 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action filed pursuant to Bivens 13 v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). 14 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to create a class certification, filed March 15 12, 2025. Plaintiff submits that “there are at least 27 Plaintiffs that filed substantially the same 16 claims in this Court and the class extends to approximately one thousand people.” (ECF No. 9.) 17 I. 18 DISCUSSION 19 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) governors whether a case can proceed as a class 20 action. The prerequisites to maintenance of a class action are that (1) the class is so numerous 21 that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there are common questions of law and fact, (3) 22 the representative party’s claims or defenses are typical of the class claims or defenses, and (4) 23 the representative party will fairly and adequately protect the class interests. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 24 23(a). 25 Plaintiff is a non-lawyer proceeding without counsel, and it is well established that a 26 layperson cannot ordinarily represent the interests of a class. See McShane v. United States, 366 27 F.2d 286 (9th Cir. 1966). This rule becomes almost absolute when, as here, the putative class [28] eee NO RI OI RO IEE IEE IEEE ENED) EIEN 1 || representative is incarcerated and proceeding pro se. Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405 , 1407 2 | (4th Cir. 1975). Accordingly, Plaintiff simply cannot “fairly and adequately protect the interests 3 | of the class,” as required by Rule 23(a)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Martin v. 4 | Middendorf, 420 F. Supp. 779 (D.D.C. 1976). Therefore, Plaintiff's motion for class action must 5 | be denied.' 6 II. 7 RECOMMENDATION 8 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's motion for 9 | class action be DENIED. 10 This Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge 11 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(). Within fourteen (14) 12 | days after being served with this Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written 13 | objections with the Court, limited to 15 pages in length, including exhibits. The document should 14 | be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Plaintiff is 15 || advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights 16 | appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. 17 | Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). [18] 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le 20 | Dated: _March 13, 2025 _ EO STANLEY A. BOONE 21 United States Magistrate Judge [23] 24 ‘In addition, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2) provides for the permissive joinder of defendants to an action if: (A) any right to relief asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of 25 the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and (B) any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2)(A) and (B). “[O]nce these requirements are 26 met, a district court must examine whether permissive joinder would ‘comport with the principles of fundamental fairness’ or would result in prejudice to either side.” Visendi v. Bank of America, N.A., 733 F.3d 863, 870 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1296 (9th Cir. 2000), quoting Desert Empire Bank v. Ins. 27 Co. of N. Am., 623 F.2d 1371, 1375 (9th Cir. 1980)). Plaintiff’s motion lacks sufficient information to determine 28 whether joinder would advance, or frustrate, the principles of fundamental fairness that underlie Rule 20.