Cranford v. Rikers Island DOC

Background

Robert White filed a self-represented complaint concerning the mattresses issued to him and 18 other detainees 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 the other 18 detainees signed the complaint. It also states that White was the only detainee who had filed an application to proceed without paying the filing fee and a required prisoner authorization, although he appeared to be the only listed plaintiff who had not signed the complaint. The court said it would separately direct White to submit a signed signature page.

Rules and reasons

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 allows multiple plaintiffs to join one action when their claims arise from the same event or related events and share a legal or factual question. Rule 21 allows a court to separate claims even without finding that the original joinder was improper. In deciding whether separation is appropriate, courts consider judicial efficiency, possible prejudice, and whether the claims require different witnesses or evidence.

The court found that the practical difficulties of managing a self-represented, multi-detainee case supported separation. Each self-represented plaintiff could appear only for himself or herself and could not act as an attorney for another plaintiff. Each plaintiff would also have to personally sign future filings. The court noted that detainees could be released or transferred, and that security restrictions could limit their ability to communicate, share discovery, exchange filings, and coordinate litigation. The court concluded that keeping the claims together would lead to piecemeal submissions, delays, and missed deadlines, and would not be fair or efficient.

Ruling

The court severed the claims of all plaintiffs under Rule 21. White will proceed as the sole plaintiff in this action. The clerk was directed to open a separate civil action, with a new docket number, for each of the other 18 plaintiffs and to place a copy of the complaint and this order in each new case. The new cases will proceed independently, and the plaintiffs will not be treated as co-plaintiffs unless the court later orders otherwise.

The court expressly did not decide whether the cases could be treated as related or consolidated later. It also certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of such an appeal. The order did not decide the underlying mattress or conditions-of-confinement claims.