Stuckey v. Nestle Corp.

Full title: ANDRE KENNETH STUCKEY, Plaintiff, v. NESTLE CORPORATION, et al.…

Court: United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Aug 25, 2021

1:20-cv-00511-SKO (PC) (E.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2021)

Opinion

1:20-cv-00511-SKO (PC)

08-25-2021

ANDRE KENNETH STUCKEY, Plaintiff, v. NESTLE CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.

SHEILA K. OBERTO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO CERTIFY

CLASS ACTION AND RELATED MOTIONS

(Docs. 20-23)

SHEILA K. OBERTO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Andre Kenneth Stuckey is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action. Plaintiff moves the Court to certify this case as a class action and for leave to file a “class action complaint.” (Docs. 20, 22-23.)

A party requesting class certification must demonstrate 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.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a).

Plaintiff, as a prisoner proceeding pro se, is unable to satisfy the above prerequisites. “It is well established that pro se prisoner plaintiffs are unable to fairly represent and adequately protect the interests of [a] class, ” as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a)(4). Pickett v. Brown, No. C-11-0445-TEH, 2011 WL 3954553, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (citations omitted); see also Gann v. Valley State Prison, No. 1:19-cv-01797-GSA, 2020 WL 70077, at *2 (E.D. Cal. 2020) (citations omitted). “A litigant appearing in propria persona has no authority to represent anyone other than himself, ” Russell v. United States, 308 F.2d 78, 79 (9th Cir. 1962) (citation omitted), and it “it is plain error to permit [an] imprisoned litigant who is unassisted by counsel to represent his fellow inmates in a class action, ” Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975).

Accordingly, Plaintiff's motions to certify this case as class action and for leave to file a class action complaint (Docs. 20, 22-23) are DENIED. Additionally, Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to file a class action complaint (Doc. 21) is DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.