MICHAEL BENANTI, Case No. 1:24-cv-01108-CDB (PC)
Plaintiff, ORDER STRIKING FILING BY NONPARTY v.
J. DOERER, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF THE COURT TO REMOVE NAMED Defendant. INTERVENOR FROM ACTION
(Doc. 8)
Plaintiff Michael Benanti (“Plaintiff”), a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, initiated this action on September 18, 2024, with the filing of a complaint on behalf of himself, ten other named plaintiffs (none of whom signed Plaintiff’s complaint), and a purported, putative class of others. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff also filed a motion for an injunctive order, requests to expedite the case and to be relieved of the requirement to apply for in forma pauperis status, to appoint counsel, and for an order preventing retaliation. (Docs. 3-4). On October 3, 2024, the Court entered an order severing Plaintiff’s claims from separate, individual actions opened among the other named plaintiffs. (Doc. 7). Pending before the court is the “Motion to Join Class Action Lawsuit” filed by non-party federal prisoner Pete J. Schwartz, filed on October 24, 2024. (Doc. 8). Schwartz did not sign the complaint and presently is a non-party in this action whom the Clerk of the Court has identified as “intervenor” on the docket. See generally (Doc. 1). Plaintiff’s Allegations In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges he and others have “endured a month of lock down” ongoing at U.S. Penitentiary Atwater (“USP Atwater”). Id. at 1. Plaintiff asserts that on August 9, 2024, a “chemical substance” was introduced into USP Atwater’s mailroom. Id. A mailroom supervisor was exposed to the substance and passed away. Id. The alleged parties responsible were arrested, charged, and are awaiting prosecution. Id. As a result of the incident, Defendant Warden J. Doerer (“Defendant”) initiated a lockdown of USP Atwater. Id. Plaintiff alleges the lockdown, initiated on August 9, 2024, through the date of the filing of the complaint, has affected the entire prison population. Id. at 1- 2. Plaintiff “accept[s] being ‘locked down’ while [Defendant] addresses valid safety and security concerns.” Id. at 1. Plaintiff alleges the “intentional putative measures, violation of [Bureau of Prisons “BOP”)] policy, and the violation of constitutional rights [] serve no legitimate penological interest. Id. at 1-2. Plaintiff asserts Defendant has denied him and the entire prison population access to administrative remedies. Id. at 2, 4. Plaintiff alleges Defendant has denied him and the entire prison population access to the news and contact with families and lawyers. Id. at 2. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges all incoming mail, visits, phone access, email access, “revalidating [and] recharging and electronic devices for radio access,” television access, and commissary access to buy radio and batteries have been suspended. Id. Plaintiff also claims Defendant has implemented a local “Green Bag Shakedown” policy that is contrary to BOP policy. Id. Plaintiff alleges that he and the entire prison population were ordered to pack their personal property in a green bag. Id. Plaintiff claims that whatever personal property that did not fit into the green bag was confiscated and no confiscation form was provided. Id. Plaintiff alleges that the amount of personal property allowed by BOP policy that fit into an assigned locker far exceeds the space provided in the green bag. Id. at 3. Further, Plaintiff alleges that during this process all legal material including transcripts, discovery, case Plaintiff also contends Defendant has failed to provide him and the entire prison population with regular access to health, dental, and psychological services. Id. Plaintiff claims there has been only one opportunity to fill out a “sick call request” while in lockdown. Id. Plaintiff asserts that through this lockdown, there has been no doctor working and available to provide treatment and prescribe medication. Id. Plaintiff claims he has been prohibited from purchasing “the full selection of [over the counter medication] twice per week as is required by BOP policy.” Id. Separately, Plaintiff claims the lockdown has resulted in “reduced calorie cold meals, no access to commissary, no time outside, no recreation, religious services, or education reentry services.” Id. Plaintiff’s Request to Proceed as Class Action Plaintiff, his proposed co-plaintiffs in his complaint (Doc. 1 at 1), and the non-parties who have requested to join the “class action” – including Schwartz (Docs. 5-6, 8) – are all non-lawyers proceeding without counsel. It is well established that a layperson cannot ordinarily represent the interests of a class. See Smith v. Schwarzenegger, 393 Fed. Appx. 518, 519 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing McShane v. United States, 366 F.2d 286, 288 (9th Cir. 1966)). A non-attorney proceeding pro se may bring his own claims to court but may not represent others. Johns v. Cty. of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1997); C.E. Pope Equity Tr. v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987) (non-attorney has a right to appear pro se on his/her own behalf, but “has no authority to appear as an attorney for others”); accord Alexander v. New Jersey State Parole Bd., 160 Fed. Appx. 249, 250 n.1 (3d Cir. 2005) (“a prisoner proceeding pro se may not seek relief on behalf of his fellow inmate”) (citing Oxedine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975)). It follows that the request of non-party Schwartz to join any class (Doc. 8) is improper. Separately, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court’s Local Rules require that all filed pleadings, motions, and papers be signed by the party personally if the party is unrepresented. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a); Local Rule 131(b). Here, while Plaintiff has signed the complaint (Doc. 1 at 4), none of Plaintiff’s proposed co-plaintiffs (id. at 1) nor Schwartz (Doc. 8) has signed the complaint. named in the complaint should proceed separately on individual claims. Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[o]n motion or on its own, the court may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party…[or] sever any claim against a party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. Courts have broad discretion regarding severance. See Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1297 (9th Cir. 2000); Maddox v. Cnty. of Sacramento, No. 2:06-cv-0072-GEB-EFB, 2006 WL 3201078, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2006). Generally, an action brought by multiple plaintiffs proceeding pro se in which one or more of the plaintiffs are in custody presents procedural problems that cause delay and confusion. Delay can arise from the transfer of prisoners to other facilities or institutions, and the changes in address that occur when prisoners are released from custody. Further, the need for all plaintiffs to agree on all filings made in this action and the need for all filings to contain the original signatures of all plaintiffs will lead to delay and confusion. That in part is why the Court ordered that Plaintiff’s claims be severed from the other ten named plaintiffs. (Doc. 8). Each plaintiff named in the complaint and two other non-parties were made solely responsible for prosecuting his action and each w
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
MICHAEL BENANTI, Case No. 1:24-cv-01108-CDB (PC)
Plaintiff, ORDER STRIKING FILING BY NONPARTY v.
J. DOERER, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF THE COURT TO REMOVE NAMED Defendant. INTERVENOR FROM ACTION
(Doc. 8)
Plaintiff Michael Benanti (“Plaintiff”), a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, initiated this action on September 18, 2024, with the filing of a complaint on behalf of himself, ten other named plaintiffs (none of whom signed Plaintiff’s complaint), and a purported, putative class of others. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff also filed a motion for an injunctive order, requests to expedite the case and to be relieved of the requirement to apply for in forma pauperis status, to appoint counsel, and for an order preventing retaliation. (Docs. 3-4). On October 3, 2024, the Court entered an order severing Plaintiff’s claims from separate, individual actions opened among the other named plaintiffs. (Doc. 7). Pending before the court is the “Motion to Join Class Action Lawsuit” filed by non-party federal prisoner Pete J. Schwartz, filed on October 24, 2024. (Doc. 8). Schwartz did not sign the complaint and presently is a non-party in this action whom the Clerk of the Court has identified as “intervenor” on the docket. See generally (Doc. 1). Plaintiff’s Allegations In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges he and others have “endured a month of lock down” ongoing at U.S. Penitentiary Atwater (“USP Atwater”). Id. at 1. Plaintiff asserts that on August 9, 2024, a “chemical substance” was introduced into USP Atwater’s mailroom. Id. A mailroom supervisor was exposed to the substance and passed away. Id. The alleged parties responsible were arrested, charged, and are awaiting prosecution. Id. As a result of the incident, Defendant Warden J. Doerer (“Defendant”) initiated a lockdown of USP Atwater. Id. Plaintiff alleges the lockdown, initiated on August 9, 2024, through the date of the filing of the complaint, has affected the entire prison population. Id. at 1- 2. Plaintiff “accept[s] being ‘locked down’ while [Defendant] addresses valid safety and security concerns.” Id. at 1. Plaintiff alleges the “intentional putative measures, violation of [Bureau of Prisons “BOP”)] policy, and the violation of constitutional rights [] serve no legitimate penological interest. Id. at 1-2. Plaintiff asserts Defendant has denied him and the entire prison population access to administrative remedies. Id. at 2, 4. Plaintiff alleges Defendant has denied him and the entire prison population access to the news and contact with families and lawyers. Id. at 2. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges all incoming mail, visits, phone access, email access, “revalidating [and] recharging and electronic devices for radio access,” television access, and commissary access to buy radio and batteries have been suspended. Id. Plaintiff also claims Defendant has implemented a local “Green Bag Shakedown” policy that is contrary to BOP policy. Id. Plaintiff alleges that he and the entire prison population were ordered to pack their personal property in a green bag. Id. Plaintiff claims that whatever personal property that did not fit into the green bag was confiscated and no confiscation form was provided. Id. Plaintiff alleges that the amount of personal property allowed by BOP policy that fit into an assigned locker far exceeds the space provided in the green bag. Id. at 3. Further, Plaintiff alleges that during this process all legal material including transcripts, discovery, case Plaintiff also contends Defendant has failed to provide him and the entire prison population with regular access to health, dental, and psychological services. Id. Plaintiff claims there has been only one opportunity to fill out a “sick call request” while in lockdown. Id. Plaintiff asserts that through this lockdown, there has been no doctor working and available to provide treatment and prescribe medication. Id. Plaintiff claims he has been prohibited from purchasing “the full selection of [over the counter medication] twice per week as is required by BOP policy.” Id. Separately, Plaintiff claims the lockdown has resulted in “reduced calorie cold meals, no access to commissary, no time outside, no recreation, religious services, or education reentry services.” Id. Plaintiff’s Request to Proceed as Class Action Plaintiff, his proposed co-plaintiffs in his complaint (Doc. 1 at 1), and the non-parties who have requested to join the “class action” – including Schwartz (Docs. 5-6, 8) – are all non-lawyers proceeding without counsel. It is well established that a layperson cannot ordinarily represent the interests of a class. See Smith v. Schwarzenegger, 393 Fed. Appx. 518, 519 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing McShane v. United States, 366 F.2d 286, 288 (9th Cir. 1966)). A non-attorney proceeding pro se may bring his own claims to court but may not represent others. Johns v. Cty. of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1997); C.E. Pope Equity Tr. v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987) (non-attorney has a right to appear pro se on his/her own behalf, but “has no authority to appear as an attorney for others”); accord Alexander v. New Jersey State Parole Bd., 160 Fed. Appx. 249, 250 n.1 (3d Cir. 2005) (“a prisoner proceeding pro se may not seek relief on behalf of his fellow inmate”) (citing Oxedine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975)). It follows that the request of non-party Schwartz to join any class (Doc. 8) is improper. Separately, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court’s Local Rules require that all filed pleadings, motions, and papers be signed by the party personally if the party is unrepresented. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a); Local Rule 131(b). Here, while Plaintiff has signed the complaint (Doc. 1 at 4), none of Plaintiff’s proposed co-plaintiffs (id. at 1) nor Schwartz (Doc. 8) has signed the complaint. named in the complaint should proceed separately on individual claims. Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[o]n motion or on its own, the court may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party…[or] sever any claim against a party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. Courts have broad discretion regarding severance. See Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1297 (9th Cir. 2000); Maddox v. Cnty. of Sacramento, No. 2:06-cv-0072-GEB-EFB, 2006 WL 3201078, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2006). Generally, an action brought by multiple plaintiffs proceeding pro se in which one or more of the plaintiffs are in custody presents procedural problems that cause delay and confusion. Delay can arise from the transfer of prisoners to other facilities or institutions, and the changes in address that occur when prisoners are released from custody. Further, the need for all plaintiffs to agree on all filings made in this action and the need for all filings to contain the original signatures of all plaintiffs will lead to delay and confusion. That in part is why the Court ordered that Plaintiff’s claims be severed from the other ten named plaintiffs. (Doc. 8). Each plaintiff named in the complaint and two other non-parties were made solely responsible for prosecuting his action and each was provided a civil rights complaint form and an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Schwartz is advised that a federal court must screen a prisoner’s complaint that seeks relief against a governmental entity, officer, or employee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) & (2). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that the action or appeal fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). A complaint is required to contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Riv. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken as true, courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I vy. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). To state a viable claim, Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Igbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Jd. The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this plausibility standard. Id. Accordingly, the Court shall screen any complaint that Schwartz files detailing his individual claims. In the event Schwartz elects to proceed with an individual action based on his } filing of a complaint, Schwartz also must file an in forma pauperis application. Conclusion and Order Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to strike non-party Pete J. Schwartz’s motion to join class action (Doc. 8) as an improper filing by a non-party; 2. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to remove non-party Pete J. Schwartz from the docket as “Intervenor”; and 3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to send to non-party Pete J. Schwartz at the address/BOP number identified in his motion (Doc. 8): i. civil rights complaint form; and ii. An application to proceed in forma pauperis. IT IS SO ORDERED. * | Dated: _ October 28, 2024 | br Pr UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE