(PC) Papazian v. Doerer

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 JAMES MICHAEL PAPAZIAN, ) Case No.: 1:24-cv-01182 JLT HBK ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 13 v. ) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CREATE A CLASS ) ACTION 14 J. DOERER, et al., ) ) (Docs. 12, 19) 15 Defendants. ) ) 16

17 James Michael Papazia seeks to hold the United States Government and several employees of 18 the Bureau of Prisons—including, but not limited to, the Warden of USP Atwater, associate wardens, 19 medical staff, mail room staff—liable for violations of his civil rights while incarcerated at USP 20 Atwater. This action was opened when the Court severed Plaintiff’s claims—and the claims of several 21 other individuals— from Benanti v. Doerer, Case No. 1:24-cv-01108-CDB (PC) and directed Plaintiff 22 to file his own complaint. (See Doc. 2 at 6-9.) Plaintiff filed a complaint as ordered. (Doc. 4.) He 23 now asserts “[t]here are at least 27 plaintiffs that filed substantially the same claims in this court,” and 24 requests the Court “create a class action under FRCP Rule 23.” (Doc. 12 at 1.) 25 The magistrate judge noted that “Plaintiff is a non-lawyer proceeding without counsel.” (Doc. 26 19 at 2.) The magistrate judge observed, “It is well established that a layperson cannot ordinarily 27 represent the interests of a class.” (Id., citing, e.g., McShane v. United States, 366 F.2d 286 (9th Cir. 28 1966); C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir.1987).) In addition, the 1 || magistrate judge noted that both the Fourth and Eleventh Circuits determined “‘it is plain error to pern 2 || an imprisoned litigant who is unassisted by counsel to represent his fellow inmates in a class action.” 3 || Ud., quoting Wallace v. Smith, 145 F. App’x 300, 302 (11th Cir. 2005), Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F. 4 || 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975).) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the Court deny the motio 5 || for class certification. Ud.) 6 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that any 7 || objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 19 at 2-3.) The Court advised Plaintiff that the “failure to 8 || file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of certain rights on appeal.” (7d. at □ 9 || citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file objections, 10 || and the time to do so has passed. 11 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. Havi 12 || carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are supported 13 || by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 14 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated March 10, 2025 (Doc. 19) are ADOPTED 15 in full. 16 2. Plaintiff's motion to certify a class (Doc. 12) is DENIED. 17 18 ||IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 || Dated: _April 10, 2025 ( LAW ph L. wan 20 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28