Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

James Brown v. Lee Ryker

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


February 16, 2012

JAMES BROWN, PLAINTIFF,
v.
LEE RYKER, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Williams, Magistrate Judge:

ORDER

Three motions are before the Court in this Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement case, which Plaintiff James Brown brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

First, Defendants have moved to compel discovery (Doc. 36). According to Defendants' motion, Plaintiff Brown has failed to respond to Defendants' interrogatories or requests for production. In response, Brown argues that Defendants' motion be time-barred and stricken, since this case's trial practice schedule dictated that discovery be completed by December 27, 2011 (See Doc. 38). The Court will not permit Plaintiff to hide behind a deadline that he failed to meet; Defendants' motion to compel (Doc. 36) is GRANTED. Mr. Brown SHALL respond to Defendants' interrogatories and requests for production ON OR BEFORE Friday, February 24.

Secondly, Plaintiff has moved for class certification. His motion (Doc. 35) will be DENIED. See Oxendine v. Williams , 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975) (holding it would be plain error to permit imprisoned pro se litigant to represent his fellow inmates in a class action). The Federal Rules permit class actions to be maintained only if the class representative (in this case the pro se Mr. Brown) "will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class, FED.R. CIV. P. 23(a)(4), and "[e]very court that has considered the issue has held that a prisoner proceeding pro se is inadequate to represent the interests of his fellow inmates in a class action." Lee v. Gardinez , 2012 WL 143612, n. 1 (S.D. Ill., Jan. 18, 2012) (quoting Craig v. Cohn , 80 F.Supp.2d 944, 946 (N.D. Ind. 2000) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted)).

Finally, Plaintiff has moved (at Doc. 37) for a month-long extension of time to file his response to Defendants' motion for summary judgment. That motion (Doc. 37) is GRANTED.

Plaintiff SHALL file his response brief on or before 3/30/2012. Plaintiff should note that, unless exceptional circumstances require it, no more extensions will be granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

STEPHEN C. WILLIAMS United States Magistrate Judge

20120216

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.