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.

Brodhead v. Teabout

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


December 19, 2006

BRIAN BRODHEAD, PLAINTIFF,
v.
TEABOUT, ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT; ET AL., DEFENDANTS. *FN1

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lawrence E. Kahn, U.S. District Judge

ORDER

The Clerk has sent to the Court a Motion to Certify a Class filed by Brian Brodhead ("Plaintiff" or "Brodhead"). Plntf's Motion (Dkt. No. 5).

I. Background

In his pro se Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his health and safety, and held him in conditions that violated his Eighth Amendment rights. See Complaint (Dkt. No. 1). Plaintiff's Complaint was ordered served by this Court in an Order filed September 28, 2006. September 2006 Order (Dkt. No. 4). The September 2006 Order also advised Plaintiff of the showing that must be made to certify a class, and that a pro se Plaintiff cannot represent a class. Id. at 1-3. Accordingly, Plaintiff was advised that "...until Plaintiff retains counsel, and counsel enters an appearance and brings a formal motion seeking class certification, Plaintiff is advised that this action shall be considered only as an action brought on his behalf . Any of the other individuals Plaintiff attempts to name in the Complaint may file their own individual actions." Id. at 3 (emphasis in original).

II. Motion for Class Certification

Plaintiff filed his Motion for Certification of a Class Action on October 16, 2006. See Plntf's Motion (Dkt. No. 5). However, the Motion does not contain any of the information required for this Court to consider certification of a class. *fn2

Thereafter, on November 9, 2006, Plaintiff filed a letter in support of his Motion, providing the names of fourteen individuals that Plaintiff claims seek to be part of the class. See Plntf's Letter in Support (Dkt. No. 9). Like the original Motion, the letter in support of the Motion fails to provide the Court with the information necessary to consider certification of a class. Finally, even if the Motion did contain such information, Plaintiff has been advised that he may not maintain a class action without an attorney representing the class. *fn3 Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion must be denied.

III. Conclusion

WHEREFORE, it is hereby

ORDERED , that Plaintiff's Motion to Certify a Class (Dkt No. 5), and Letter in Support (Dkt. No. 9) are DENIED ; and it is further

ORDERED , that the Clerk of the Court is hereby directed to correct the Docket Sheet so that it reflects the proper listing of Defendants and Plaintiffs - although Muhammad and Daniels are to remain as "Terminated" Plaintiffs in this action ; and it is further

ORDERED , that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on Plaintiff by regular mail. IT IS SO ORDERED .


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.