to appoint counsel before conducting further proceedings in this case. c.Class certification Finally, DeBrew contends the district court erred by denying his motion for class certification. We review for an abuse of discretion the decision to deny a request to certify a class. See Garcia v. Johanns, 444 F.3d 625, 631 (D.C.Cir.2006). In order to represent a class, a plaintiff must show, among other things, that he “will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” FED. R. CIV. P. 23(a)(4). The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding DeBrew could not satisfy this requirement because a pro se litigant who is not trained as a lawyer is simply not an adequate class representative. See Fymbo v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 213 F.3d 1320, 1321 (10th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407
holding that a criminal defendant is entitled to know the charges against him and to be tried solely upon the charges against him internal quotation marks and citation omitted holding that an employer violates the nlra when it fails to provide information that is needed by the bargaining representative for the proper performance of its duties internal quotation marks omitted recognizing that the declaratory judgment act is only procedural and does not create substantive rights internal quotation marks and citations omitted holding a pro se plaintiff is not an adequate class representative because the competence of a layman is clearly too limited to allow him to risk the rights of others internal quotation marks omitted holding that compliance with rule 3 is both a mandatory and jurisdictional prerequisite to appeal internal quotation marks omitted