1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. ALI v. JONES
 

ALI v. JONES

No. CIV-14-1174-C.

MURTAZA ALI, Plaintiff, v. JUSTIN JONES, et al., Defendants.

United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma.

January 25, 2016.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Murtaza Ali, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Justin Jones, Defendant, represented by Charles Dickson, III .

Ed Evans, Defendant, represented by Charles Dickson, III .

Robert Patton, Defendant, represented by Charles Dickson, III .

Mark Knutson, Defendant, represented by Charles Dickson, III .

Jim Farris, Defendant, represented by Charles Dickson, III .

Tiffany Powell, Defendant, represented by Charles Dickson, III .

Terry, Defendant, represented by Charles Dickson, III .

Fox, Defendant, represented by Charles Dickson, III .

Mike Duncan, Defendant, represented by Charles Dickson, III .

Josh Lee, Defendant, represented by Charles Dickson, III .

Jay Drawbridge, Defendant, represented by Charles Dickson, III .

Kelly Currie, Defendant, represented by Charles Dickson, III .

Leo Brown, Defendant, represented by Charles Dickson, III .

Denton, Defendant, represented by Charles Dickson, III .

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff brought the present action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking recompense for alleged violations of his constitutional rights. Consistent with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Gary M. Purcell. Judge Purcell entered a Second Supplemental Report and Recommendation ("R&R") on August 31, 2015, to which Plaintiff timely objected.

The R&R under consideration rejected Plaintiff's request to certify a class. Plaintiff argues that the Court's ruling is inconsistent with the recent denial of his request for appointment of counsel. According to Plaintiff, if the case is too complex for him to act as representative then it is so complex that he should be appointed counsel. Plaintiff misapprehends the nature of the R&R and the reasons for denying his request for appointment of counsel. As Judge Purcell noted, a non-lawyer cannot bring an action on behalf of another person. Thus, this matter cannot proceed as a class action at this time. This determination is not inconsistent with the determination that Plaintiff is capable of presenting his claims without the benefit of counsel at the present time.

As set forth more fully herein, the Court adopts, in full, the Second Supplemental Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 38). Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class, Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (Dkt. No. 35) is DENIED. The matter is again referred to Judge Purcell consistent with the original Order of Referral.

Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases