.” Craig v. Cohn, 80 F.Supp.2d 944, 946 (N.D. Ind. 2000) (internal quotation marks and quotation omitted). Thus, Plaintiff can pursue claims related to her confinement at the NCCW on her own behalf but may not assert the rights of other prisoners in a class action

Lee v. Gardinez, No. 11-cv-570-GPM, 2012 WL 143612, at *1 n.1 (S.D. Ill., Jan. 18, 2012) (quoting Craig v. Cohn, 80 F.Supp.2d 944, 946 (N.D. Ind. 2000) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted)). The Complaint

“Every court that has considered the issue has held that a prisoner proceeding pro se is inadequate to represent the interests of his fellow inmates in a class action.” Coleman v. Newton, 2009 WL 1936265, at *1 (D. Neb. June 29, 2009) (quoting Craig v. Cohn, 80 F.Supp.2d 944, 946 (N.D. Ind. 2000)); see also Mikale v. U.S. Dep't of Lab., No. 4:20CV3101, 2020 WL 7046835, at *2 (D. Neb. Dec. 1, 2020) (citing additional cases).

Numerous cases have held that a prisoner proceeding pro se cannot represent the interests of his or her fellow inmates in a class action. See Heard v. Caruso, 351 F. App'x 1, 15 (6th Cir. 2009); Palasty v. Hawk, 15 F. App'x 197, 200 (6th Cir. 2001); Craig v. Cohn, 80 F. Supp. 2d 944, 956 (N.D. Ind. 2000); Caputo v. Fauver, 800 F. Supp. 168, 169 (D.N.J. 1992); Avery v. Powell, 695 F. Supp. 632, 643 (D.N.H. 1988). Thus, the court will deny Plaintiff Calhoun's motion for class certification.

"Every court that has considered the issue has held that a prisoner proceeding pro se is inadequate to represent the interests of his fellow inmates in a class action." Coleman v. Newton, 2009 WL 1936265, at *1 (D. Neb. June 29, 2009) (quoting Craig v. Cohn, 80 F.Supp.2d 944, 946 (N.D.Ind. 2000)); see Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975) ("[l]t is plain error to permit this imprisoned litigant who is unassisted by counsel to represent his fellow inmates in a class action."). Thus, Stanko can only sue on his own behalf.

"Every court that has considered the issue has held that a prisoner proceeding pro se is inadequate to represent the interests of his fellow inmates in a class action." Coleman v. Newton, 2009 WL 1936265, at *1 (D. Neb. June 29, 2009) (quoting Craig v. Cohn, 80 F.Supp.2d 944, 946 (N.D.Ind.2000)). Pro se litigants, including inmates, are not permitted to represent other parties in class action proceedings.

Even if a motion had been filed, however, the motion would be subject to denial because a prisoner bringing a pro se action cannot represent a class of plaintiffs. See Lee v. Gardinez, No. 11-cv-570-GPM, 2012 WL 143612, at *1 n.1 (S.D. Ill., Jan. 18, 2012) ("Every court that has considered the issue has held that a prisoner proceeding pro se is inadequate to represent the interests of his fellow inmates in a class action[.]" (quoting Craig v. Cohn, 80 F. Supp. 2d 944, 946 (N.D. Ind. 2000)) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted)). GROUP LITIGATION BY MULTIPLE PRISONERS

Even if a motion had been filed, however, the motion would be subject to denial because a prisoner bringing a pro se action cannot represent a class of plaintiffs. See Lee v. Gardinez, No. 11-cv-570-GPM, 2012 WL 143612, at *1 n.1 (S.D. Ill., Jan. 18, 2012; Craig v. Cohn, 80 F. Supp. 2d 944, 946 (N.D. Ind. 2000)("Every court that has considered the issue has held that a prisoner proceeding pro se is inadequate to represent the interests of his fellow inmates in a class action) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted)).

Plaintiff has filed his complaint as a class action lawsuit on behalf of "[a]ll current and future prisoner/inmates housed at Pontiac M.S.U. from 2012, to the present." (Comp., p. 3). However a pro se prisoner cannot represent a class of plaintiffs See Macon v. Bustos, 2018 WL 3954847, at *2 (C.D.Ill. Aug. 17, 2018)("Inmates proceeding pro se are not allowed to act as class representatives."); Buck v. Baldwin, 2019 WL 1111393, at *4 (S.D.Ill. March 11, 2019)("A prisoner bringing a pro se action cannot represent a class of plaintiffs."); Craig v. Cohn, 80 F.Supp.2d 944, 946 (N.D.Ind. Jan 7, 2000)(noting every court that has considered the issue found a pro se prisoner could not adequately represent the interests of other inmates). Therefore, Plaintiff will not be allowed to proceed with a class action.

The Federal Rules permit class actions to be maintained only if the class representative "will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class," Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4), and "[e]very court that has considered the issue has held that a prisoner proceeding pro se is inadequate to represent the interests of his fellow inmates in a class action." Lee v. Gardinez, No. 11-cv-570-GPM, 2012 WL 143612, at *1 n.1 (S.D. Ill., Jan. 18, 2012) (quoting Craig v. Cohn, 80 F. Supp. 2d 944, 946 (N.D. Ind. 2000) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted)). Disposition