Stuckey v. People Republic of China

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: December 15, 2020
• Docket: 4:20-cv-07344
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 ANDRE KENNETH STUCKEY, et al., 4 Case No. 20-cv-07344-YGR (PR) Plaintiffs, 5 v. ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT 6 PREJUDICE PEOPLE[’S] REPUBLIC OF CHINA, et al., 7 Defendants. 8

9 On October 20, 2020, Plaintiff Andre Kenneth Stuckey, a state prisoner currently 10 incarcerated at Pelican Bay State Prison (“PBSP”), filed the present pro se prisoner “Class Action 11 Complaint” on behalf of himself and additional Plaintiffs, who are also inmates at PBSP, 12 purporting to represent all “incarcerated inmates in the State of California for damages and 13 equitable relief suffered as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic, against the Defendants, the 14 People’s Republic of China . . . .” Dkt. 1 at 2.1 Plaintiff Stuckey’s request is construed as a 15 motion for certification of a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b). The 16 prerequisites to maintenance of a class action are that: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of 17 all members is impracticable, (2) there are common questions of law and fact, (3) the 18 representative party’s claims or defenses are typical of the class claims or defenses, and (4) the 19 representative party will fairly and adequately protect the class interests. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). 20 However, pro se prisoner plaintiffs are not adequate class representatives able to fairly represent 21 and adequately protect the interests of the class. Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th 22 Cir. 1975); see also Russell v. United States, 308 F.2d 78, 79 (9th Cir. 1962) (“a litigant appearing 23 in propria persona has no authority to represent anyone other than himself”), so class certification 24 may be denied on that basis, see Griffin v. Smith, 493 F. Supp. 129, 131 (W.D.N.Y. 1980) 25 (denying class certification on basis that pro se prisoner cannot adequately represent class). 26 Therefore, this action cannot proceed as a class action. Accordingly, Plaintiff Stuckey’s motion 27 1 for certification of a class action is DENIED. The additional named Plaintiffs, who are all inmates 2 || at PBSP, are DISMISSED as Plaintiffs from this action without prejudice. 3 The Court now turns to whether Plaintiff Stuckey, the only remaining named Plaintiff and a 4 || repeat filer in this Court, may proceed with this action. On October 20, 2020, which is the same 5 date this action was filed, the Clerk of the Court sent a notice to Plaintiff, informing him that his 6 action could not go forward until he paid the filing fee or filed a completed prisoner’s in forma 7 || pauperis application. Dkt. 2. The Clerk sent Plaintiff a blank in forma pauperis application and 8 told him that he must pay the fee or return the completed application within twenty-eight days or 9 || his action would be dismissed. More than twenty-eight days have passed and Plaintiff has neither 10 || paid the filing fee nor returned the in forma pauperis application. Instead, the record shows that 11 Plaintiff has only submitted his Certificate of Funds and his six-month prison trust account 12 statement. Dkt. 5. However, Plaintiff has not complied with the Clerk’s notice to either file a 13 complete IFP application or pay the filing fee. 14 Accordingly, this federal civil rights action is DISMISSED without prejudice. See Fed. R. 3 15 || Civ. P. 41(b). Because this dismissal is without prejudice, Plaintiff may move to reopen the 16 || action. Any such motion must contain a complete IFP application (or full payment for the 3 17 $400.00 filing fee). The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions and close the file. 1g IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 || Dated: December 15, 2020 Lopeet Map NNE GONZATEZ ROGERS 20 nited States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28