Opinion
5:23-cv-143-TES-CHW
10-15-2024
JOHN M FOSTER, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER TIMOTHY C WARD, et al., Defendants.
Proceedings Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Before the U.S. Magistrate Judge
ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION
CHARLES H. WEIGLE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's request for extension of time (Doc. 98), in which Plaintiff requests several forms of relief. He primarily requests an extension of time to object or respond to a Court order entered on September 16, 2024. (Doc. 88). Plaintiff's request for extension of time to object is GRANTED in part and his objection is due on November 8, 2024.
Plaintiff also complains that Defendants have not complied with the Court's instructions to re-send discovery. See (Doc. 88, p. 2). Defendants have filed a notice of compliance with the Court's order, which includes a certificate of service showing that the documents were mailed on September 16, 2024, along with copies of the responses provided. (Doc. 89). Plaintiff concedes that he received this response, but Plaintiff appears to request additional documents. (Doc. 98, p. 3). Defendants' response is consistent with the Court's order, which denied Plaintiff's request to compel production of additional documents.
Plaintiff also requests that this matter be certified as a class action and seeks several forms of relief that are analogous to injunctive relief. For example, he asks to be protected from further transfers while his case is pending, to be given one hour per week on the computer at his current prison, to be given a specific cell assignment and bunk profile, and to be transported for healthcare. For the reasons explained below, these requests are not proper.
As to Plaintiff's request that this case be considered for class-certification, it is well-settled that a pro se prisoner, who is unskilled in the law, cannot serve as an adequate class representative. Ponton v. McNeil, 2010 WL 5463003 at * 1 (N.D. Fla. Dec. 29, 2010) (citing Flymbo v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 213 F.3d 1320, 1321 (10th Cir. 2000) (non-attorneys proceeding pro se cannot adequately represent a class)); see also, Johnson v. Brown, 581 Fed.Appx. 777, 781 (11th Cir. 2014) (citing Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 873 (11th Cir. 2008) and Massimo v. Henderson, 468 F.2d 1209, 1210 (5th Cir. 1972) to explain why a pro se inmate could not represent or petition for the rights of his fellow inmates). Plaintiff's further requests for injunctive relief have been previously considered and denied by this Court. (Docs. 61, 68, 88). For the reasons previously explained, it is recommended that Plaintiff's requests for injunctive relief be denied
Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's request for extension (Doc. 98) be GRANTED in part as noted above and that it be DENIED in part to the extent that he seeks injunctive relief or to certify this case as a class action.
SO ORDERED AND RECOMMENDED.