Opinion
No. CIV S-05-1669 RRB KJM P.
June 15, 2007
ORDER
On June 6, 2007, plaintiff filed his fifth request for the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff's request will be denied. See May 18, 2007 Order. Plaintiff has also filed a request that this action proceed as a class action. However, it is well established that a layperson cannot ordinarily represent the interests of a class. See McShane v. United States, 366 F.2d 286 (9th Cir. 1966). This rule becomes almost absolute when, as here, the putative class representative is incarcerated and proceeding pro se. Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975). In direct terms, plaintiff cannot "fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class," as required by Rule 23(a)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Martin v. Middendorf, 420 F. Supp. 779 (D.D.C. 1976). Therefore, plaintiff's request for class certification will be denied.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's June 6, 2007 motion for the appointment of counsel is denied.
2. Plaintiff's June 6, 2007 request that this action proceed as a class action is denied.