Shaw v. Kemper, 2:21-cv-00622

Eight pro se inmate plaintiffs at Racine Correctional Institution filed a civil complaint alleging violations of the First, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments and sought class certification and appointed counsel.
Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification and a motion to appoint counsel; only one plaintiff (Shaw) paid the full $402 filing fee and was the only plaintiff who signed the complaint.
Most other plaintiffs submitted letters arguing they need not pay separate fees because Shaw paid; they did not file motions to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) or provide certified trust account statements.
The court denied class certification without prejudice because pro se prisoners are inadequate class representatives under controlling precedent.
The court denied appointment of counsel because plaintiffs did not demonstrate reasonable attempts to obtain counsel and provided no evidence of such efforts.
The court ordered all plaintiffs who wish to proceed jointly to sign and re-file the complaint and required each non-paying plaintiff to either pay the $402 filing fee or file an IFP motion with a certified six-month trust-account statement by July 7, 2021, or be dismissed without prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Class certification (Rule 23 adequacy)	Plaintiffs sought class certification so they could represent fellow inmates.	Opposition not detailed; court relied on precedent barring pro se class reps.	Denied without prejudice; pro se prisoners are inadequate class representatives; may renew if counsel appears.
Appointment of counsel (28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1))	Plaintiffs asked the court to appoint counsel to represent the class.	N/A; court applied the Pruitt/Navejar standard for appointment.	Denied: plaintiffs failed to show reasonable attempts to secure counsel or present evidence of such efforts.
Filing fees for multiple prisoner plaintiffs (PLRA / 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914, 1915)	Plaintiffs argued Shaw’s payment covered all co-plaintiffs.	N/A; court applied Boriboune and PLRA principles.	Each prisoner plaintiff must pay the $402 fee or file an IFP motion with certified trust-account statements; one payment by Shaw is not sufficient.
Signatures and case-management deadline (Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 / local rule)	Only Shaw signed the complaint; others implied separate signatures unnecessary.	N/A; court enforced Rule 11 and local rules.	All plaintiffs must sign and re-file the complaint; non-signing or failure to pay/file IFP by July 7, 2021 will result in dismissal without prejudice.

Howard v. Pollard, 814 F.3d 476 (7th Cir. 2015) (pro se prisoner inadequate to represent a class)
Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405 (4th Cir. 1975) (plain error to permit imprisoned pro se litigant to represent fellow inmates in a class action)
Caputo v. Fauver, 800 F. Supp. 168 (D.N.J. 1992) (prisoner proceeding pro se is inadequate to represent other inmates)
Fymbo v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 213 F.3d 1320 (10th Cir. 2000) (litigant may litigate own claims but not the claims of others)
James v. Eli, 889 F.3d 320 (7th Cir. 2018) (no constitutional right to appointed counsel in civil cases)
Navejar v. Iyiola, 718 F.3d 692 (7th Cir. 2013) (standard for requesting counsel under § 1915(e)(1))
Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647 (7th Cir. 2007) (en banc) (two-part framework for appointing counsel in civil cases)
Boriboune v. Berge, 391 F.3d 852 (7th Cir. 2004) (each prisoner litigant must pay statutory filing fee or proceed IFP; Rule 11 signature requirement applies to multiple unrepresented plaintiffs)