UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
December 27, 2012
J. CLARK KELSO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION (ECF No. 6)
Plaintiff Ray Medina ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
This action is proceeding on Plaintiff's Complaint filed October 15, 2012. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff's Complaint has not yet been screened.
On November 19, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion asking for clarification as to whether his motion for injunctive relief has been entered on the docket and whether his case is currently proceeding as a class action.. (ECF No. 6.)
Plaintiff's motion for clarification is GRANTED. The requested clarification follows..
Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief has been entered on the docket at ECF No. 9. The Court will address that motion in due course.
This action is not proceeding as a class action. Plaintiff is not an attorney, and he is proceeding without counsel. . While a non-attorney proceeding pro se may bring his own claims to court, he may not represent others. E.g., Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 664-65 (9th Cir. 2008); Fymbo v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 213 F.3d 1320, 1321 (2000); Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1997); C. E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987). A pro se litigant simply cannot "fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4); Fymbo, 213 F.3d at 1321. Therefore, Plaintiff's request for class action certification is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.