White v. Rikers Island DOC

Background

Robert White and 18 other detainees filed a pro se complaint—meaning they were proceeding without lawyers—challenging the conditions of confinement related to mattresses issued at the Otis Bantum Correctional Facility on Rikers Island. The complaint named Rikers Island DOC and Bob Barker Company, Inc. as defendants.

The opinion states that White filed the complaint, but it appears that he was the only listed plaintiff who did not sign it. White was also the only detainee who had submitted an application to proceed without paying the filing fee and a required prisoner authorization. The court said it would address White’s missing signature in a separate order.

Rules and Analysis

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 allows multiple plaintiffs to join one lawsuit when their claims arise from the same event or related events and share a legal or factual question. Rule 21 permits a court to sever claims—separate them into different lawsuits—even without finding that the original joinder was improper.

The court concluded that the practical difficulties of managing a 19-plaintiff, multi-prisoner case justified severance under Rule 21. First, each pro se plaintiff could represent only himself or herself and could not act as an attorney for the other plaintiffs. Although White appeared to have filed the complaint, he could not represent the other 18 detainees.

Second, Rule 11 requires each unrepresented party to personally sign pleadings, motions, and other court papers. Because detainees at Rikers Island could be released or transferred, some plaintiffs might be unable to sign future filings. Third, security concerns would likely limit the detainees’ ability to communicate, coordinate case strategy, share discovery, or exchange copies of filings. The court found that these problems could lead to piecemeal submissions, delays, and missed deadlines.

Ruling and Effect

The court ordered the claims of all plaintiffs severed. Robert White will proceed as the sole plaintiff in this case. The Clerk of Court must open a separate civil action with a new docket number for each of the other 18 plaintiffs and docket a copy of the complaint and this order in each new case. The new cases will proceed independently, and the detainees will no longer be treated as co-plaintiffs unless the court later orders otherwise.

The court did not decide whether the mattress claims are legally valid. It also did not decide whether the new cases should be treated as related or combined for some purposes under other federal procedural rules. The court certified that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status for that appeal.