Fry

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 OTIS MICHAEL THOMAS, No. 2:19-cv-1041 KJM CKD P Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS J.C. FRY, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a motion asking that this case proceed as a class action. However, no other plaintiffs are identified in the operative second amended complaint, nor is a class defined. The claims in plaintiff’s second amended complaint, and the claims upon which this action proceeds pertain to plaintiff only. Furthermore, as to whether plaintiff is capable to represent the interests of a class, it is well established that a layperson cannot ordinarily represent the interests of a class. See McShane v. United States, 366 F.2d 286 (9th Cir. 1966). This rule becomes almost absolute when, as here, the putative class representative is incarcerated and proceeding pro se. Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975). In direct terms, plaintiff…