Oxendine v. Williams, 74--1687
| Decision Date | 12 February 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 74--1687,74--1687 |
| Citation | 509 F.2d 1405 |
| Parties | Craig Martin OXENDINE, and all other inmates similarly situated at the Caswell County Unit of the North Carolina Department of Correction, Appellant, v. George R. WILLIAMS, Individually and in his official capacity as Superintendent of the Caswell County Subsidiary Unit of the North Carolian Department of Correction, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Craig Martin Oxendine, pro se.
Jacob L. Safron, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State of North Carolina.
Before BUTZNER, RUSSELL and FIELD, Circuit Judges.
Seeking injunctive relief and damages for alleged deprivation of constitutional rights, Craig M. Oxendine brought this pro se class action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for himself and all other inmates of the Caswell County Unit of the North Carolina Department of Correction. He alleged five constitutional violations: (1) inmates are denied adequate medical treatment; (2) living conditions are so crowded and unsanitary as to constitute a threat to their health; (3) inmates are denied sufficient clean clothing; (4) inmates are denied reasonable access to the courts; and (5) inmates are not allowed physical contact with their families. After considering affidavits submitted by both parties, the district court granted summary judgment for the defendant against Oxendine and the class consisting of 'all inmates incarcerated at the Caswell County Unit.'
Oxendine's request for an injunction against prison policies that affect all inmates places this class action under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2). See Robinson v. Lorillard Corp., 444 F.2d 791, 802 (4th Cir. 1971); 7A Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1775, at 19--22. A judgment against him may prevent the other inmates from later raising the same claims. Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(c)(2). * It follows that unless he can 'fairly and adequately protect the interest of the class,' he may not represent it. Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a)(4); see 7 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1765, at 617--22. Ability to protect the interests of the class depends in part on the quality of counsel, Gonzales v. Cassidy, 474 F.2d 67 (5th Cir. 1973), and we consider the competence of a layman representing himself to be clearly too limited to allow him to risk the rights of others. Cf. Anderson v. Moore, 372 F.2d 747, 751 n. 5 (5th Cir. 1967). Neither Oxendine nor any other prisoner has assigned error to the class aspect of this case, but it is plain error to permit this imprisoned litigant who is unassisted by counsel to represent his fellow inmates in a class action. Cf. Ferrara v. Sheraton McAlpin Corp., 311 F.2d 294, 297 (2d Cir. 1962).
We may deal with four of Oxendine's individual claims briefly. The prison's medical records show that he has received treatment from the prison doctor within a reasonable time of his requests. See Cates v. Ciccone, 422 F.2d 926 (8th Cir. 1970); Blanks v. Cunningham, 409 F.2d 220 (4th Cir. 1969). The affidavits show that the prison living conditions, though less than ideal, do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. See Landman v. Peyton, 370 F.2d 135 (4th Cir. 1966). No evidence was presented that incoming or outgoing legal mail was read or censored. Finally, Oxendine has no constitutional right to physical contact with his family.
Oxendine's contention that he was denied access to the courts must be heard on the merits. He has supported by affidavit his claim that legal materials were confiscated from prisoners and that writing supplies were not available. The superintendent, however, stated that inmates are allowed to use the materials they have for writing and are provided with implements and paper for that purpose. There is, then, a genuine issue of material fact on these points. Viewed most favorably to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mills v. Greenville County, C.A. No. 0:08-69-PMD-BM.
...minor children in federal court, even where Virginia law permits the parent to assert the children's claims). See also Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 & n. * (4th Cir.1975) (a pro se prisoner unassisted by counsel cannot be an advocate for others in a class action); Frank Krasner ......
-
Skundor v. Coleman, Civil Action No. 5:02-0205 (S.D. W.Va. 7/31/2003)
...disputed Plaintiff's entitlement to proceed in behalf of a class of Plaintiffs citing the Fourth Circuit's decision in Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405 (4th Cir. 1975).5 He further raised numerous defenses affirmatively including Plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies, st......
-
Patterson v. Mahwah Bergen Retail Grp., Inc.
...must appoint class counsel to represent the class, as pro se litigants cannot represent absent class members. See Oxendine v. Williams , 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975) ("Ability to protect the interests of the class depends in part on the quality of counsel, and we consider the compete......
-
Hill v. Washington State Dept. of Corrections
...F.Supp. 409, 412 (E.D.Va.1990) (neither prisoners nor visitors have a constitutional right to prison visitation); Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975) ("a [prisoner] has no constitutional right to physical contact with his family."); Block v. Rutherford, 468 U.S. 576, 5......