# (PC) Stuckey v. Nestle Corporation

> District Court, E.D. California · August 25, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10029721

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** August 25, 2021
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10029721

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 ANDRE KENNETH STUCKEY, Case No. 1:20-cv-00511-SKO (PC)

12 Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO CERTIFY
13 v. CLASS ACTION AND RELATED
MOTIONS
14 NESTLE CORPORATION, et al.,
(Docs. 20-23)
15 Defendants.
16
17 Plaintiff Andre Kenneth Stuckey is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
18 pauperis in this action. Plaintiff moves the Court to certify this case as a class action and for leave
19 to file a “class action complaint.” (Docs. 20, 22-23.)
20 A party requesting class certification must demonstrate that “(1) the class is so numerous
21 that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the
22 class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses
23 of the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the
24 class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a).
25 Plaintiff, as a prisoner proceeding pro se, is unable to satisfy the above prerequisites. “It is
26 well established that pro se prisoner plaintiffs are unable to fairly represent and adequately
27 protect the interests of [a] class,” as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). Pickett v. Brown, No. C-
11-0445-TEH, 2011 WL 3954553, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (citations omitted); see also Gann v.
1 Valley State Prison, No. 1:19-cv-01797-GSA, 2020 WL 70077, at *2 (E.D. Cal. 2020) (citations
2 omitted). “A litigant appearing in propria persona has no authority to represent anyone other than
3 himself,” Russell v. United States, 308 F.2d 78, 79 (9th Cir. 1962) (citation omitted), and it “it is
4 plain error to permit [an] imprisoned litigant who is unassisted by counsel to represent his fellow
5 inmates in a class action,” Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975).
6 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motions to certify this case as class action and for leave to file a
7 class action complaint (Docs. 20, 22-23) are DENIED. Additionally, Plaintiff’s motion for an
8 extension of time to file a class action complaint (Doc. 21) is DENIED as moot.
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
10

11 Dated: August 25, 2021 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
12

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10029721. Public record. Not legal advice.