DeJesus v. Annucci

Background

Byron K. Brown and 29 other incarcerated individuals jointly filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. They alleged that prisoners at Sing Sing Correctional Facility had been denied the ability to attend religious services. The complaint was styled as a class action, but the opinion states that the allegations after the general statement about the denial of services concerned only Brown.

Only 20 of the 30 plaintiffs signed the complaint. Brown was the only plaintiff who submitted an application to proceed without paying the filing fee in advance and a prisoner authorization. The jointly filed motion seeking appointment of counsel was signed by only 19 plaintiffs, while the supporting memorandum and declaration were signed only by Brown.

Reason for Severance

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 generally permits multiple plaintiffs to join one lawsuit when their claims arise from the same event or series of events and share a common legal or factual question. Rule 21 allows a court to separate claims when doing so would promote fairness, efficiency, and manageable litigation.

The court found that the plaintiffs’ claims arose from their individual experiences. Although the plaintiffs asserted similar allegations about denial of religious services, each would need to describe when the denial occurred, how it affected him, and what steps he took to challenge it.

The court also found that the practical difficulties of managing a lawsuit involving many incarcerated people representing themselves weighed in favor of separation. Each unrepresented plaintiff would have to sign filings personally, and the plaintiffs could not act as lawyers for one another. Transfers, releases, security restrictions, and limited opportunities to communicate could cause piecemeal filings, delays, and missed deadlines.

Order

The court severed the plaintiffs’ claims from one another under Rule 21. Brown proceeded as the sole plaintiff in this case. The other 29 plaintiffs were each assigned new case numbers, and copies of the complaint, the appointment-of-counsel motion, and the order were to be docketed in those cases. The new cases were to proceed independently unless the court later treated them as related or consolidated them.

Each plaintiff was directed either to pay the $402 filing fee or to submit an application to proceed without paying the fee in advance and a prisoner authorization. The court stated that each prisoner must pay a full filing fee, particularly because the severance created multiple cases. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal.

The order addressed case management and filing requirements. It did not decide whether the alleged denial of religious services violated the plaintiffs’ rights.