The opinion
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ABEL HELB, : Civil No. 3:20-CV-1008
:
Plaintiff, :
:
v. : (Judge Mariani)
:
ANGELA HOOVER, et al., : (Magistrate Judge Carlson)
:
Defendants. :
MEMORANDUM ORDER
THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:
This is one of a number of cases filed by immigration detainees challenging the
conditions of their confinement which have been referred to the undersigned for case
management. We entered a case management order directing the plaintiff to take a
series of actions by July 24, 2020.
The plaintiff has now filed a request to consolidate (Doc. 6), which indicates that
the plaintiff regards his case as part of a larger class action being brought by another
pro se detainee-plaintiff, Daniel Brown. Brown v. Hoover et al., Civil No. 3:20-CV-
998. Therefore, the plaintiff asks that his case be consolidated with Brown’s putative
class action, and that he not be required to pay an individual filing fee to pursue his
own lawsuit.
For the reasons set forth below, this request is DENIED.
1
brought by another pro se detainee, Daniel Brown, fails because it runs afoul of the
rules governing class action certification. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure there are four prerequisites which must be met before a proposed class
action may be certified. To obtain class certification a party must show that:
1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable;
2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; 3) the claims or
defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses
of the class; and 4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately
protect the interests of the class.
See Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a). These requirements are set forth in Rule 23 in the conjunctive.
Therefore, a district court can only certify a class if all four requirements of Rule 23(a)
are met. See In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litig., 552 F.3d 305, 309 n.6 (3d Cir.
2008); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of America Sales Practice Litigation, 148 F.3d 283,
308-09 (3d Cir. 1998). Since all four of these elements must be met before a class
action may be certified, the failure to satisfy any single element is fatal to a pro se
detainee’s motion for class certification.
In this case, turning first to Rule 23's requirement that Athe representative parties
will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class,@ we find that the plaintiff’s
fellow detainee, Daniel Brown, cannot serve as a fair and adequate class representative
at this time. The plaintiff’s expressed desire to have another detainee serve as the
personal architect of this proposed class action runs afoul of a settled tenet of case law
2
behalf of his fellow inmates. See Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th
Cir.1975) (‘[I]t is plain error to permit [an] imprisoned litigant who is unassisted by
counsel to represent his fellow inmates in a class action.’); see also Wallace v. Smith,
145 Fed. Appx. 300, 302 (11th Cir.2005).” Alexander v. New Jersey State Parole Bd,.
160 F.App=x 249, 250 (3d Cir. 2005). Thus, “pro se litigants are generally not
appropriate as class representatives. See Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407
(4th Cir.1975).” Hagan v. Rogers, 570 F.3d 146, 159 (3d Cir. 2009). In this case the
plaintiff plainly intends to have Brown, a pro se detainee litigant, serve as this class
representative. This request for class certification does not meet this threshold
consideration that the representative party will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class. Therefore this pro se request to consolidate the plaintiff’s case as
a class action with the case of Daniel Brown must be denied.
Accordingly, the plaintiff’s request to consolidate (Doc. 6), is DENIED and the
plaintiff is ORDERED to comply with the scheduling orders previously entered by this
court.
So ordered this 7th day of July, 2020.
S/Martin C. Carlson
Martin C. Carlson
United States Magistrate Judge
3