his own rights, Courts should hesitate to allow a lay person to risk the rights of others. See Avery v. Powell, 695 F.Supp. 632, 643 (“pro se plaintiff may not possess the knowledge and experience necessary to protect the interests of the class as required by Rule 23(a)(4)”). When confronting such a request from a prisoner, Courts have consistently held that a prisoner acting pro se “is inadequate to represent the interests of his fellow inmates in a class action.” Caputo v. Fauver, 800 F.Supp. 168 (D.N.J.1992); see, e.g., Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir.1975) (“it is plain error to permit this imprisoned litigant who is unassisted by counsel to represent his fellow inmates in a class action”); Ethnic Awareness Org. v. Gagnon, 568 F.Supp. 1186, 1187 (E.D.Wis.1983) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, Maldonado’s request to represent
holding that president of association of minority prisoners would not fairly and adequately protect interests of class even though intelligent enough to represent himself holding that a class plaintiff who seeks to assert statutory rights to protect a class of which he is a member is not asserting rights antagonistic to any members of that class holding that it is error to certify class when named class representatives are not members of the class they purport to represent recognizing that the primary issue to be considered in whether the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interest of the class is a determination of whether any antagonism exists between the interests of the plaintiffs and those of the remainder of the class holding attorneys motion to intervene in former clients tort suit untimely because attorney had clear and early notice that former client would not adequately represent his interests