Wells v. Newsome

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDRE LAVAR WELLS, Case No. 19-cv-07537-EMC

Plaintiff,

ORDER OF DISMISSAL v.

Docket No. 1

GAVIN NEWSOME,

Defendant.

This case was opened when Andre Wells, a California prisoner, filed a pro se “motion to enterviene in order to inforce Coleman stipulations and to protect mental health patients rights.” Docket No. 1 (errors in source). The first page of the filing listed the parties above and did not have a case number. In an effort to protect Mr. Wells’ rights, the document was treated as an attempt to open a new case and was filed. The clerk notified Mr. Wells that he needed to file a complaint on the Court’s civil rights complaint form and needed to pay the civil filing fee or file an in forma pauperis application. Docket Nos. 2, 3. Mr. Wells then filed a document entitled “this is and was a motion as a class action member not a separate claim,” in which he stated that he was trying to obtain relief in the Coleman and Clark class actions already on file rather than to commence a separate case.1 Docket No. 5.

A prisoner may not bring a separate case to compel prison officials to comply with the orders or remedial plans in the Clark and Coleman cases. Rather, he must pursue his claims in Clark or Coleman by urging further action through the class representatives and attorneys in those class actions. See Pride v. Correa, 719 F.3d 1130, 1133 (9th Cir. 2013) (holding that individual

1 Coleman v. Wilson, E. D. Cal. Case No. 2:90-cv-0520-KJM-DB, is a class action in the Eastern District of California concerning the inmates with serious mental disorders. See Coleman v. 27

Wilson, 912 F. Supp. 1282 (E.D. Cal. 1995). Clark v. California, N. D. Cal. Case No. 96-1486 suits for injunctive and equitable relief may be dismissed when they duplicate an existing class || action’s allegations and prayer for relief); see also McNeil v. Guthrie, 945 F.2d 1163, 1165 (10th Cir. 1991) (“Individual suits for injunctive and equitable relief from alleged unconstitutional || prison conditions cannot be brought where there is an existing class action” involving the same subject matter); Gillespie v. Crawford, 858 F.2d 1101, 1103 (Sth Cir. 1988) (en banc) (“Individual || members of the class and other prisoners may assert any equitable or declaratory claims they have, but they must do so by urging further actions through the class representative and attorney, || including contempt proceedings, or by intervention in the class action.”).

9 Upon review of Mr. Wells’ motion to intervene and his letter filed December 2, 2019 (Docket Nos. 1 and 5), it is clear that Mr. Wells intended to file his document in Clark and/or Coleman, and not to commence a new case. This was the correct course of action, although || pursuant to an order in Coleman, he may not file a pro se document directly in that case but rather 13 only through plaintiffs’ counsel. Docket No. 4080 in Coleman vy. Brown, E. D. Cal. Case No. || 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-DB (“any documents raising specific mental health care concerns shall be 15 forwarded to plaintiffs’ counsel”). Mr. Wells therefore should send his filing (or otherwise || communicate his concerns) to plaintiffs’ counsel in Coleman by mailing it to Donald H. Specter, 17 Prison Law Office, 1917 Fifth Street, Berkeley, CA 94710. Mr. Specter also is class counsel in 18 the Clark case, so Mr. Wells should consider taking the same approach in the Clark case, 1.e., send his filing (or communicate his concerns) to Mr. Specter.

For the foregoing reasons, the motion to intervene is DENIED without prejudice to Mr. Wells seeking relief in the Coleman and Clark cases as stated above. Docket No. 1. This action is DISMISSED because it was opened in error. No filing fee is due so no in forma pauperis application needs to be filed. The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 27, 2020 <4

ED M. CHEN

United States District Judge