Timothy Justin Tacy, Sr. v. Susan Benton , 408 F. App'x 298 ( 2011 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-12291 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Non-Argument Calendar JAN 14, 2011
________________________ JOHN LEY
CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 2:10-cv-14091-DLG
TRAVIS ROY BASS, et al,
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiffs,
TIMOTHY JUSTIN TACY, SR.,
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SUSAN BENTON,
Highlands County Sheriff Office,
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(January 14, 2011)
Before BARKETT , HULL and ANDERSON , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Timothy Tacy, a former prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district
court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 class action civil rights complaint
against Susan Benton, the Sheriff of Highlands County, Florida and the Sheriff’s
Office Detention Bureau for violations of the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution. On appeal, Tacy argues that
Benton, acting under the color of state law, deprived the prisoners and their
friends and family of rights protected under federal law and the Constitution in
restricting the type, size, and content of the mail prisoners received while
incarcerated in the Highlands County jail. Tacy argues that no part of his class
action complaint is frivolous, and therefore, should not be dismissed. Lastly, Tacy
argues that because § 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 indicates that Congress
assigned federal courts with the role of protecting constitutional rights, we must
reverse and remand the case to the district court for trial.
We review de novo the district court’s dismissal of Tacy’s § 1983 action.
Grayson v. King, 460 F.3d 1328, 1336 n.5 (11th Cir. 2006). We have interpreted
28 U.S.C. § 1654, the general provision permitting parties to proceed pro se, as
providing “a personal right that does not extend to the representation of the
2
interests of others.” Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 873 (11th Cir. 2008). We
have affirmed the dismissal of the portion of a prisoner’s complaint seeking relief
on behalf of fellow inmates. Massimo v. Henderson, 468 F.2d 1209, 1210 (5th
Cir. 1972); see Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975)
(holding that it is plain error to permit an imprisoned litigant who is unassisted by
counsel to represent his fellow inmates in a class action).
Following the holding of Massimo, Tacy may not seek relief on behalf of
his fellow inmates. 468 F.2d at 1210. Because Tacy may not represent the
plaintiffs in a class action suit, the district court properly dismissed Tacy’s § 1983
complaint. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
3