(TAG) Maxey v. Van Dalen et al Doc.

10

Case 1:05-cv-01385-LJO-NEW Document 10 Filed 11/29/2005 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 DARRELL L. MAXEY, CASE NO. CV-F-05-1385 REC LJO
12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO DENY CLASS CERTIFICATION
vs. (Doc. 3.)
13
PAUL VAN DALEN, et al.,
14
Defendants.
15 /
16 Plaintiff Darrell L. Maxey (“plaintiff”) is incarcerated and proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis
17 in this action. On November 2, 2005, plaintiff filed his form 42 U.S.C. § 1983complaint (“complaint”)
18 and motion for class certification. F.R.Civ.P. 23(a) addresses class action prerequisites and states:
19 One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on
behalf of all only if (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
20 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,
21 and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the
class.
22
23 In addition to satisfying F.R.Civ.P. 23(a)’s requirements, a complaint needs facts to show
24 grounds for class action certification, such as: (1) risk of prejudice from separate actions; (2) injunctive
25 relief sought for the class; or (3) “predominant” common questions and “superior” remedy. See
26 F.R.Civ.P. 23(b).
27 The complaint fails to satisfy class action pleading requirements, assuming that it attempts to
28 plead class action claims.

Dockets.Justia.com
 Case 1:05-cv-01385-LJO-NEW Document 10 Filed 11/29/2005 Page 2 of 2

1 This Court DENIES plaintiff’s motion for class certification.

2 IT IS SO ORDERED.
3 Dated: November 28, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
66h44d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28