IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
FARRIS PALMORE and the Inmates
of the Dothan City Jail
D.T. MARSHAL, et al.,
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This is a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in which Farris Palmore, a city jail inmate,
challenges actions of employees of the Dothan City Jail. Plaintiff indicates in the caption of
his complaint that he seeks to file/proceed in this action on behalf of all inmates incarcerated
at the Dothan City Jail. (Doc. No. 1 at pg. 1.) The court, therefore, construes the complaint
to contain a motion for class certification under Rule 23, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Upon consideration of the motion for class certification, the court concludes that this motion
is due to be denied.
Plaintiff is an inmate presently incarcerated at the Dothan City Jail who seeks to
Case 1:06-cv-00503-MHT-VPM Document 2 Filed 06/14/2006 Page 1 of 3
Palmore v. The City of Dothan et al (INMATE2)
represent other inmates confined therein. Among the requirements which litigants must meet
in order to maintain an action as a class action is that the "representative parties will fairly
and adequately protect the interests of the class." Rule 23(a)(4), Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. The court concludes that the pro se prisoner plaintiff is not an adequate class
representative able to fairly represent the class. See Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405
(4th Cir. 1975); Hummer v. Dalton, 657 F.2d 621 (4th Cir. 1981); Ethnic Awareness
Organization v. Gagnon, 568 F.Supp. 1186 (E.D. Wis. 1983); Inmates, Washington County
Jail v. England, 516 F.Supp. 132 (E.D. Tenn. 1980), affirmed, 659 F.2d 1081 (6th Cir. 1981).
Class certification in this case is therefore improper. Thus, Plaintiff’s motion for class
certification is due to be denied.