Kelly v. Acting Warden
1:25-cv-00896
M.D. Penn.Jun 25, 2025Background
- Tyrone Kelly, incarcerated at FCI-Schuylkill, filed a putative class action against the United States Bureau of Prisons (BOP).
- Kelly alleges the BOP violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by failing to properly implement the First Step Act (FSA) concerning earned time credits.
- The suit sought injunctive relief on behalf of all similarly situated federal prisoners.
- Kelly filed two motions to amend, clarifying the relief sought and specific facts about his own request for FSA time credits.
- The court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A, as Kelly is a prisoner suing a government entity and proceeding pro se.
- The court considered whether a pro se prisoner can represent a putative class and found this is not permitted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a pro se prisoner can represent a class in federal court | Kelly sought to represent all similarly situated prisoners in a class action | BOP argued (or law provides) that pro se prisoners cannot be class representatives | Court held pro se prisoners may not represent a class, class claims dismissed |
| Whether Kelly's motions to amend addressed the deficiencies | Motions to amend clarify claims and facts | Motions now moot after dismissal | Motions to amend denied as moot |
| Whether Kelly may pursue individual claims for FSA implementation | Seeks individual relief if class can’t proceed | N/A | Dismissal without prejudice; may file individual claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Hagan v. Rogers, 570 F.3d 146 (3d Cir. 2009) (pro se inmates cannot represent other inmates in class actions)
- Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405 (4th Cir. 1975) (plain error to permit pro se prisoner to represent fellow inmates)
- Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224 (3d Cir. 2008) (pleading standards under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 and 12(b)(6))
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard for plausible claims)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (standard for facial plausibility in complaints)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (pro se pleadings held to less stringent standard)