Boyle v. Madigan
| Decision Date | 06 February 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 73-1345.,73-1345. |
| Citation | 492 F.2d 1180 |
| Parties | Kay BOYLE et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Frank I. MADIGAN et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Edward H. Lyman, Berkeley, Cal. (Argued), Clifford Sweet, Stephen E. Ronfeldt, Oakland, Cal., for plaintiffs-appellants.
Peter W. Davis (Argued) of Crosby, Heavey, Roach & May, Oakland, Cal., Richard J. Moore, County Counsel, Thomas J. Fennone, Deputy County Counsel, County of Alameda, Oakland, Cal., for defendants-appellees.
Before MERRILL and KILKENNY, Circuit Judges, and BELLONI,* District Judge.
The individual plaintiffs are residents of the Northern District of California who have in the past been incarcerated in Alameda County jail, known as the Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center. None was so incarcerated at the time suit was brought. They bring this action "on behalf of themselves and all other persons who are now, have been, or will be incarcerated in the Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center, and who are now, or have in the past, or will suffer from physical or mental illnesses while so incarcerated."
The complaint relates to the quality of medical care at the rehabilitation center. It states:
The "system" is discussed in detail and the manner of its operation upon each individual plaintiff is set forth.
The prayer is for equitable relief.1 The complaint seeks a declaration that defendants have subjected plaintiffs and the class they represent to cruel and unusual punishment and have denied them their rights to privacy and to petition the courts for redress of grievances. It seeks a decree enjoining defendants from continuing to engage in the practices specified and requiring them to submit for approval a plan assuring compliance.
On motion of the defendants, the District Court entered its order dismissing the action.
Much of the argument on appeal has centered on class-action problems: whether the action can properly be maintained as a class action; whether these plaintiffs can properly represent the class they purport to represent. These questions we need not reach. The District Court did not make determinations in this respect under Rule 23(c)(1), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Instead it proceeded directly to dismissal of the action.
In our judgment this is the proper course to follow where the named plaintiffs have failed to state a claim in themselves for the relief they seek. Until they can show themselves aggrieved in the sense that they are entitled to the relief sought, there is no occasion for the court to wrestle with the problems presented in considering whether the action may be maintained on behalf of the class. Until a claim on their own behalf is alleged by the named plaintiffs they have failed to allege an actual case or controversy.
Such is the holding in O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 94 S.Ct. 669, 38 L. Ed.2d 674 (Jan. 15, 1974), where the Court stated:
"If none of the named plaintiffs purporting to represent a class establishes the requisite of a case or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Salgado v. Piedmont Capital Corp.
...254, 260 (N.D.Ill., 1978). See Board of School Commissioners v. Jacobs, 420 U.S. 128, 95 S.Ct. 846, 43 L.Ed.2d 74 (1975); Boyle v. Madigan, 492 F.2d 1180 (9 Cir., 1974). If plaintiffs individually have no claim, they have not met the requirement of F.R.C.P. 23(a)(3) that their claims be "ty......
-
Fanty v. Com. of Pa., Dept. of Public Welfare, 76-1968
...complaints, which seek relief for themselves and for the classes they purport to represent, must be dismissed. See Boyle v. Madigan, 492 F.2d 1180, 1182 (9th Cir.1974). Plaintiffs have called our attention to several class actions in which federal courts have awarded relief similar to that ......
-
Bill Buck Chevrolet, Inc. v. Gte Florida, Inc.
...none may seek relief on behalf of himself or any other member of the class. 414 U.S. at 494, 94 S.Ct. at 675. Boyle v. Madigan, 492 F.2d 1180, 1182 (9th Cir.1974); see also, Lynch v. Baxley, 744 F.2d 1452, 1456 (11th Cir.1984) (stating that "[i]ndividual standing requirements must be met by......
-
Dillard v. Pitchess
...or to be required pending such appeal. 1 As is noted earlier in this memorandum, and contrary to the situation in Boyle v. Madigan, 492 F.2d 1180 (9th Cir. 1974), Mr. Dillard was a pre-trial prisoner at the jail when he filed this 2 Television sets were originally provided, but the speed wi......