LOVELACE v. ODUM

• Court: District Court, M.D. Georgia
• Decided: June 5, 2025
• Docket: 7:25-cv-00036
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA VALDOSTA DIVISION

MICHAEL P. LOVELACE, JR., : : Plaintiff, : : v. : CASE NO.: 7:25-CV-36 (LAG) : WARDEN ODUM, : : Defendant. : : ORDER Pro se Plaintiff Michael P. Lovelace, Jr., a prisoner at Valdosta State Prison in Valdosta, Georgia, has filed a “class-action lawsuit” under 42 U.S.C § 1983. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff requests to “make all inmates at Valdosta State Prison a plaintiff in the said federal lawsuit as they share the same Eight[h] Amendment violation with injuries… .” (Doc. 5 at 1). A prerequisite for class action certification is a finding by the Court that the representative party can “fairly and adequately protect the interest of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). The Eleventh Circuit repeatedly has held that a pro se plaintiff is not an adequate class representative and may not litigate on behalf of others. See Johnson v. Brown, 581 F. App’x 777, 781 (11th Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (finding pro se litigant cannot bring an action on behalf of his fellow inmates); Bass v. Benton, 408 F. App’x 298 (11th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal of pro se former prisoner’s § 1983 class action because “the general provision permitting parties to proceed pro se” does not provide “a personal right that . . . extend[s] to the representation of the interests of others”); Wallace v. Smith, 145 F. App’x 300, 302 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (citing Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975) (finding it “plain error to permit [an] imprisoned litigant who is unassisted by counsel to represent his fellow inmates in a class action”); Massimo v. Henderson, 468 F.2d 1209, 1210 (5th Cir. 1972) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal of the portion of a prisoner’s complaint that sought relief on behalf of the prisoner’s fellow inmates).1 Because Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se, the Court cannot find he is an adequate representative that can litigate on behalf of his fellow prisoners in a class action lawsuit. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this Complaint without prejudice. Each Plaintiff may file their own separate complaint asserting claims that are personal to that prisoner and for which they will be individually responsible for docketing fees.2 SO ORDERED, this 4th day of June, 2025.

/s/ Leslie A. Gardner LESLIE A. GARDNER, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

1 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), the Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit rendered prior to October 1, 1981. 2 Plaintiff is reminded that he has at least three prior dismissals while incarcerated or detained that qualify as strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See, e.g., Lovelace v. Clayton County, No. 1:04-cv-2987- WBH (N.D. Ga. Oct. 27, 2004) (dismissed for failure to state a claim); Lovelace v. Aldridge, No. 1:04-cv- 783-WBH (N.D. Ga. Apr. 8, 2004) (same); Lovelace v. Georgia, No. 1:03-cv-1807-WBH (N.D. Ga. July 30, 2003) (dismissed as frivolous); see also Lovelace v. United States Government, No. 1:23-cv-5981-LMM (N.D. Ga. Feb. 2, 2024) (denying request to proceed in forma pauperis under §1915(g) and dismissing case due to Plaintiff having three or more strikes). Therefore, Plaintiff’s ability to proceed in forma pauperis in federal civil actions is strictly limited. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Medberry v. Butler, 185 F.3d 1189, 1192– 93 (11th Cir. 1999); Sutton v. Dist. Attorney’s Office, 334 Fed. App’x 278, 279 (11th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).