## Facts

- A North Carolina prisoner filed a pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking injunctive relief and damages based on conditions at a correctional unit, purporting to sue for himself and all similarly situated inmates.
- The complaint alleged: inadequate medical care; overcrowded and unsanitary living conditions; insufficient clean clothing; denial of reasonable access to the courts; and restrictions preventing physical contact with family.
- The district court treated the case as a Rule 23(b)(2) inmate class action and, after considering affidavits from both sides, entered summary judgment for the superintendent against the named plaintiff and the class.
- On the access-to-courts claim, the prisoner asserted by affidavit that officials confiscated inmates’ legal materials and that writing supplies were not available.
- The prisoner appealed from the adverse summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether an incarcerated litigant proceeding pro se can “fairly and adequately protect the interest of the class” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(4) and therefore represent other inmates in a class action.
2. Whether summary judgment was proper on the prisoner’s individual claim that prison officials denied access to the courts by confiscating legal materials and denying writing supplies.
3. Whether summary judgment was proper on the prisoner’s remaining constitutional claims concerning medical care, conditions of confinement, clothing, and physical contact with family.

## Decision

- The court held it was error to allow an unrepresented prisoner to act as a class representative because a pro se inmate cannot adequately protect absent class members’ interests under Rule 23(a)(4).
- The court vacated summary judgment as to the prisoner’s individual access-to-courts claim, concluding his affidavits created a genuine dispute of material fact requiring a determination on the merits.
- The court affirmed summary judgment on the medical care, overcrowding/sanitation, clothing, and family-contact claims, finding no triable constitutional violation shown on the summary judgment record.
- The judgment was affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings limited to the individual access-to-courts claim.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 23(a)(4) requires adequate representation; a pro se prisoner generally lacks the competence to represent a class because absent inmates’ rights should not be placed at risk through lay representation.
- Courts may treat class-representative inadequacy as reversible error even if the parties did not specifically contest class certification.
- A prisoner’s access-to-courts claim may defeat summary judgment when supported by evidence that officials confiscated legal materials or denied necessary writing supplies, because such conduct can constitute unreasonable interference with court access.
- Summary judgment is appropriate on prison-conditions claims where the record, including affidavits and institutional records, shows no genuine dispute of material fact rising to a constitutional violation.

## Conclusion

The court disallowed pro se inmate class representation under Rule 23(a)(4), required further proceedings on the prisoner’s individual access-to-courts claim due to disputed facts, and otherwise upheld summary judgment rejecting the remaining prison-conditions claims.


Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405 (4th Cir. 1975)