Maddox v. Clarke et al, No. 7:2019cv00872 - Document 3 (W.D. Va. 2020)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Michael F. Urbanski on 8/31/2020. (Opinion mailed to Pro Se Party via US Mail)(tvt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Maddox v. Clarke et al Case 7:19-cv-00872-MFU-RSB Document 3 Filed 08/31/20 Page 1 of 1 Pageid#: 75 Doc. 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ROANOKE DIVISION DEONDRAY DANIEL MADDOX, Plaintiff, v. HAROLD CLARKE, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 7:19cv00872 MEMORANDUM OPINION By: Michael F. Urbanski Chief United States District Judge Plaintiff Deondray Daniel Maddox, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 1 By conditional filing order entered July 27, 2020, the court assessed a filing fee and directed plaintiff to submit certain financial documentation within twenty days. See ECF No. 2. The court advised plaintiff that failure to return the required paperwork would result in dismissal of this action without prejudice. Id. More than twenty days have elapsed and Maddox has not responded to the court’s order. Accordingly, the court will dismiss Maddox’s complaint without prejudice. Maddox is advised that the claims raised in this action may be refiled in a separate action, subject to the applicable statute of limitations. 31st day of August, 2020. ENTER: This ____ Michael F. Urbanski Chief U.S. District Judge 2020.08.31 11:58:49 -04'00' ____________________________________ Michael F. Urbanski Chief United States District Judge 1 The court notes that other inmate plaintiffs are listed in the caption of the complaint; however, only Maddox has signed the complaint. To the extent he is trying to bring suit on behalf of these other inmates, the court will consider and deny a motion for certification of a class action. It is inappropriate to certify a class in an action where a pro se litigant seeks to represent the interests of the class. Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975) (“[I]t is plain error to permit this imprisoned litigant who is unassisted by counsel to represent his fellow inmates in a class action.”). “A prisoner cannot act as a ‘knight-errant’ for other prisoners,” and because none of the other “plaintiffs” have signed the complaint, none of them can proceed as a plaintiff in this action. see Scott v. Sanford, No. 8:06-3484-MBS-BHH, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 222453, at *7 (D.S.C. Jan. 4, 2017) (citing Hummer v. Dalton, 657 F.2d 621, 625-626 (4th Cir. 1981); see e.g., Ratcliffe, et al. v. Clarke, et al., 7:20cv333 (W.D. Va. Jun. 15, 2020). Dockets.Justia.com
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
