- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Baran v. N.H. Dep't of Corr.
Factual and Procedural Background
Paul Baran, an inmate at the New Hampshire State Prison for Men proceeding pro se, filed an action seeking class certification to challenge the defendants' use of the Inmate Recreation Fund. The complaint, signed by Baran and ninety-five other inmates, alleges misuse of this fund by the New Hampshire Department of Corrections ("D.O.C.") and its Commissioner, Helen Hanks. The case was referred for preliminary review under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(a) and Local Rule 4.3(d)(1).
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the complaint states a claim for relief based on the alleged misuse of the Inmate Recreation Fund.
- Whether a pro se inmate may be certified to represent a class of inmates in a class action lawsuit.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez, 140 S.Ct. 1721 (2020) | Authority allowing courts to dismiss pro se inmate actions sua sponte if no claim is stated. | Supported dismissal of complaint for failure to state a claim. |
| Hernandez-Cuevas v. Taylor, 723 F.3d 91 (1st Cir. 2013) | Standard that factual allegations must be taken as true for plausibility determination. | Applied to assess whether complaint stated a plausible claim. |
| Machado v. Weare Police Dept., 494 Fed.Appx. 102 (1st Cir. 2012) | Standard for reviewing pro se complaints liberally. | Guided liberal construction of pro se complaint. |
| Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) | Pro se complaints are held to less stringent standards. | Supported lenient review of complaint. |
| Bell Alt. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) | Complaint must provide fair notice and factual basis for claim. | Applied to find complaint insufficiently pled. |
| Ocasio-Hernandez v. Fortuno-Burset, 640 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2011) | Factual allegations must raise right to relief above speculative level. | Used to determine complaint failed to state a claim. |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1654 | Pro se litigants may not represent others in court. | Supported denial of class certification for pro se inmate. |
| Herrera-Venegas v. Sanchez-Rivera, 681 F.2d 41 (1st Cir. 1982) | Pro se litigants cannot represent others. | Applied to bar pro se class representation. |
| Mincy v. Deparlos, 497 Fed.Appx. 234 (3d Cir. 2012) | Pro se inmates cannot represent a class. | Supported denial of class certification. |
| Johnson v. Brown, 581 Fed.Appx. 777 (11th Cir. 2014) | Pro se litigants cannot serve as class representatives. | Applied to deny class certification. |
| Khalil v. Laird, 353 Fed.Appx. 620 (2d Cir. 2009) | Pro se plaintiffs cannot represent others in class actions. | Used to justify denial of class certification. |
| Sch. Union No. 37 v. United Natl Ins. Co., 617 F.3d 554 (1st Cir. 2010) | Only issues raised in objections to Report and Recommendation are subject to district court review. | Guided procedural instructions for objections. |
| Santos-Santos v. Torres-Centeno, 842 F.3d 163 (1st Cir. 2016) | Failure to timely object waives appellate rights. | Informed warning about appeal rights. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court applied the standard that a complaint must contain factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), as interpreted in Twombly and Ocasio-Hernandez. Baran alleged misuse of the Inmate Recreation Fund but failed to provide any factual support for this claim, rendering the complaint insufficient. Additionally, the court noted that although multiple inmates signed the complaint, pro se litigants cannot represent others in a class action under 28 U.S.C. § 1654 and controlling precedent. Consequently, Baran could not be certified as a class representative. Given these deficiencies, the court concluded the complaint did not state a claim and the motion for class certification must be denied. However, the court allowed the plaintiffs thirty days to file an amended complaint properly alleging facts supporting a claim, signed by each pro se plaintiff wishing to remain or by counsel.
Holding and Implications
The court DENIED the motion for class certification and recommended dismissal of the complaint without prejudice unless an amended complaint is timely filed. The direct effect is that the plaintiffs cannot proceed as a class action represented by a pro se inmate, and the current complaint fails to state a claim. No new legal precedent was established; the decision applies existing standards regarding pro se representation and pleading requirements.
ANDREA K. JOHNSTONE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Paul Baran, pro se, et al.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
ANDREA K. JOHNSTONE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Paul Baran, who is an inmate at the New Hampshire State Prison for Men and is proceeding pro se, filed an action seeking class certification to challenge the defendants' use of the Inmate Recreation Fund. His filing is signed by ninety-five other inmates. The defendants are the New Hampshire Department of Corrections (“D.O.C.”) and the Commissioner of the D.O.C., Helen Hanks. The case was referred to the undersigned for preliminary review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(a) and Local Rule 4.3(d)(1).
Standard of Review
The court may dismiss sua sponte an action brought by a pro se inmate against prison officials if, among other things, the plaintiff fails to allege facts that state a claim for relief. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) & 1915A(a); see also Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez, 140 S.Ct. 1721, 1725 (2020). For purposes of deciding whether the complaint states an actionable claim, the court takes the factual allegations, without legal conclusions, as true and determines whether those facts are sufficient to state a plausible cause of action. Hernandez-Cuevas v. Taylor, 723 F.3d 91, 102 (1st Cir. 2013); Machado v. Weare Police Dept., 494 Fed.Appx. 102, 105 (1st Cir. 2012). The court liberally construes a pro se complaint, using a less stringent standard than would apply to a pleading filed by a lawyer. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
Discussion
Baran filed a document titled “MOTION: TO BE REGISTERED AS A CLASS FOR A CLASS ACTION SUIT” that was docketed as both the complaint (doc. no. 1) and as a motion for class certification (doc. no. 2). The complaint and motion are signed by ninety-five pro se inmates, along with Baran. In support, Baran states that “[t]his action is taking place for misuse of a directed fund, by the Commissioner Helen Hanks & the D.O.C. The account in question is the Inmate Recreation Fund.” He asks that the court grant him the right to sue on behalf of a class and order the D.O.C to notify all inmates in all New Hampshire State Prison facilities of their right to join the action or refuse to become part of it.
A. State a Claim
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires a complaint to contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” That requirement means that to proceed a complaint at a minimum must include factual allegations that give each “defendant fair notice of what . . . the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Alt. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Further, the factual allegations must be sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative legal.” Ocasio-Hernandez v. Fortuno-Burset, 640 F.3d 1, 12 (1st Cir. 2011).
Baran states that the D.O.C. and the Commissioner have misused the Inmate Recreational Fund. He alleges no facts, however, to show that any misuse might have occurred. Instead, Baran focuses on his request to proceed as a class action and states that “[a]s soon as we are deemed a class I will send the motion for our Lawsuit.” Doc. 1, at 2. As such, Baran has not stated a claim for relief that can proceed in this action.
B. Class Certification
Baran and the other ninety-five inmates who signed the complaint are proceeding pro se. Although each of the plaintiffs may bring a claim or claims on his own behalf, none may represent another inmate. 28 U.S.C. § 1654; LR 83.2(d); Herrera-Venegas v. Sanchez-Rivera, 681 F.2d 41, 42 (1st Cir. 1982). For that reason, a pro se inmate may not represent other inmates in a class action. Mincy v. Deparlos, 497 Fed.Appx. 234, 238, n.3 (3d Cir. 2012); Johnson v. Brown, 581 Fed.Appx. 777, 781 (11th Cir. 2014); Khalil v. Laird, 353 Fed.Appx. 620, 621 (2d Cir. 2009).
C. Result
Baran and the other signers of the complaint have not stated a cognizable claim. Because of their pro se status, however, it is appropriate to allow the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint that alleges facts to show that they have a claim against the D.O.C. and/or the Commissioner. The motion for class certification should be denied.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the motion for class certification (doc. no. 2) should be denied. The plaintiffs should be given thirty days to file an amended complaint, signed by each pro se plaintiff who wishes to remain in the case or by retained counsel, failing which the complaint (doc. no. 1) should be dismissed without prejudice.
Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days of receipt of this notice. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). The fourteen-day period may be extended upon motion. Only those issues raised in the objection to this Report and Recommendation are subject to review in the district court. See Sch. Union No. 37 v. United Natl Ins. Co., 617 F.3d 554, 564 (1st Cir. 2010). Any issues not preserved by such objection(s) are precluded on appeal. See id. Failure to file any objections within the specified time waives the right to appeal the district court's order. See Santos-Santos v. Torres-Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168 (1st Cir. 2016).
Alert