United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division
T. Neff United States District Judge.
a civil rights action, originally brought by three Ingham
County Jail inmates pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Since
filing, the Court has denied lead Plaintiff Jackson leave to
proceed in forma pauperis (ECF Nos. 9-10), because
he had previously filed at least three cases that were
dismissed on the grounds that they were frivolous, malicious
or failed to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(g). The Court subsequently dismissed Plaintiff
Jackson's claims without prejudice (ECF No. 17), because
he failed to pay his $133.33 portion of the civil action
filing fee. In the same order, the Court dismissed without
prejudice the claims of Plaintiff Lorenzo Chestner, because
he failed either to pay his proportionate share or the filing
fee or to file the documents necessary to apply to proceed
in forma pauperis. The Court granted leave to
proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 16) to Plaintiff
Keith Medlin, who is now the sole remaining Plaintiff in the
the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110
Stat. 1321 (1996), the Court is required to dismiss any
prisoner action brought under federal law if the complaint is
frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a
defendant immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§
1915(e)(2), 1915A; 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c). The Court must
read Plaintiff's pro se complaint indulgently,
see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), and
accept Plaintiff's allegations as true, unless they are
clearly irrational or wholly incredible. Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). Applying these
standards, Plaintiff's action will be dismissed for
failure to state a claim.
Keith Medlin presently is incarcerated at the Ingham County
Jail (ICJ). He sues the ICJ, the Ingham County Sheriff
Department (ICSD), and Deputy Sheriffs Scott Wrigglesworth,
(unknown) Gaston, and (unknown) Wallace.
the allegations of the complaint are at times stated in lead
Plaintiff Jackson's first-person-singular voice, the
Court assumes that all allegations are also personal to
remaining Plaintiff Medlin. In addition, the complaint
purports to be filed as a class action for all similarly
to the complaint, Plaintiff is lodged in a cell originally
designed for one person, which is presently occupied by two
people. The cell is made of brick on all four sides, with a
solid entrance door. Plaintiff is locked in his cell for 18
hours in every day, with two periods, 12:00 to 3:00 p.m. and
8:00 to 11:00 p.m., spent in a television room with 30
prisoners. He asserts that no running or other
cardio-vascular exercise is permitted in the out-of-cell
alleges that the toilet for his cell is digitally timed to
flush only twice in every hour. He complains that, if both
prisoners use the toilet once during the course of an hour,
no flushes remain until the hour has passed. Plaintiff
alleges that, when one of the prisoners needs to use the
toilet a third time in the hour, his urine and feces must
remain in the toilet until the timer is reset. He contends
that, in such instances, he must smell the odors of the urine
or feces until the toilet can be flushed again. Plaintiff
also complains that, should he need to defecate during that
period, he may experience unsanitary toilet-bowl splash. In
addition, he contends, when the toilets flush, urine and
feces from other cells sometimes come up in his cell's
toilet. Further, when showers are taken, the water runs for
only three minutes, which Plaintiff contends is too little to
wash the offending germs from his body.
addition, Plaintiff claims that the prison has closed one
“post” due to the presence of black mold.
(Compl., ECF No. 1, PageID.8.) Plaintiff states that he and
other prisoners have no way of knowing if the spores are
airborne and therefore dangerous. He therefore seeks a health
inspection, physical examinations of all prisoners'
lungs, and a federal investigation.
contends that the complained-of conditions have caused him
“mental anguish, smell and suffering.” (Compl.,
ECF No. 1, PageID.9.) He seeks compensatory and punitive
damages, together with injunctive relief.
has entitled his complaint as a class action, which the Court
construes as a request for class certification. For a case to
proceed as a class action, the court must be satisfied on a
number of grounds, including the adequacy of class
representation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). It is
well established that pro se litigants are
inappropriate representatives of the interests of others.
See Garrison v. Mich. Dep't of Corr., 333 F.
App'x 914, 919 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing Oxendine v.
Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975)); see
also Dodson v. Wilkinson, 304 F. App'x 434, 438 (6th
Cir. 2008); Ziegler v. Michigan, 59 F. App'x
622, 624 (6th Cir. 2003); Palasty v. Hawk, 15 F.
App'x 197, 200 (6th Cir. 2001); Howard v.
Dougan, No. 99-2232, 2000 WL 876770, at *1 (6th Cir.
June 23, 2000). Because Plaintiff is an incarcerated pro
se litigant, the Court finds that he is not an
appropriate representative of a class. Therefore, the Court
will deny Plaintiff's request for class certification.