holding that a pro se plaintiff could not bring a class action on behalf of his fellow orthodox Muslim inmates
How later courts described this case
- holding that a pro se plaintiff could not bring a class action on behalf of his fellow orthodox Muslim inmates
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
MICKEL HART, #139505, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 2:20-cv-526-ECM-SMD
) [WO]
JEFFERSON S. DUNN, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pro se Plaintiff Mikel Hart, a state inmate confined at the Red Eagle Honor Farm,
brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff challenges the
constitutionality of the process for determining custody eligibility utilized by the Alabama
Department of Corrections (“ADOC”). Id. Plaintiff alleges that male inmates are treated
differently than female inmates with respect to their eligibility for minimum-community
custody and work release. Id. On January 13, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting class
action status under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. (Doc. 21). Plaintiff seeks class
certification on behalf of several other Red Eagle inmates who have also filled actions in
this Court challenging the ADOC’s process for determining custody eligibility. Id. Plaintiff
presumably seeks to act as the class representative. Id.
The Court construes Plaintiff’s motion as one for class certification. Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23 lists several prerequisites a litigant must meet to maintain a class
action. One requirement is that the representative party “will fairly and adequately protect
the interests of the class.” FED. R. CIV. P. 23(a)(4). It is well settled that, except in very rare
cases, a pro se litigant lacks the training, competence, and experience necessary to
adequately represent the interests of a proposed class. See, e.g., Johnson v. Brown,
581 F. App’x 777, 781 (11th Cir. 2014) (holding that a pro se plaintiff could not bring a
class action on behalf of his fellow orthodox Muslim inmates); Williams v. Monroe Cty.
Bd. of Educ., 2009 WL 262750, at *1 (S.D. Ala. Feb. 4, 2009) (holding that two pro se
plaintiffs lacked the training and expertise necessary to protect the interests of a proposed
class). See generally WILLIAM B. RUBENSTEIN, 1 NEWBERG ON CLASS ACTIONS § 3:79
(5th ed. 2020) (explaining that “courts uniformly reject motions for class certification filed
by a pro se litigant”). Here, there is nothing in the record to suggest that Plaintiff possesses
the training, competence, and experience necessary to adequately represent the interests of
her fellow Red Eagle inmates.
The undersigned Magistrate Judge therefore RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s
Motion for Class Certification (Doc. 21) be DENIED. The undersigned also
RECOMMENDS that this case be referred to the undersigned for further proceedings.
It is further ORDERED that the parties shall file any objections to this
Recommendation on or before February 18, 2021. A party must specifically identify the
factual findings and legal conclusions in the Recommendation to which each objection is
made; frivolous, conclusive, or general objections will not be considered. Failure to file
written objections to the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations in accordance
with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) shall bar a party from a de novo determination
by the District Court of legal and factual issues covered in the Recommendation, and
waives the right of the party to challenge on appeal the District Court’s order based on
unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions accepted or adopted by the District Court
except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d
404 (5th Cir. 1982); 11TH CIR. R. 3-1; see also Stein v. Lanning Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d
33 (11th Cir. 1982); Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc).
DONE this 4th day of February, 2021.
Stephen M. Doyle
CHIEF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE