Cox v. Rikers Island DOC

Background

Robert White filed a complaint concerning the conditions of confinement involving mattresses issued to him and 18 other detainees at the Otis Bantum Correctional Facility on Rikers Island. The complaint listed the other detainees, and all 18 signed it. The opinion states that White appeared to have filed the complaint, but that he was the only listed plaintiff who had not signed it; the court said it would separately direct him to submit a signed signature page. White was the only detainee who had submitted an application to proceed without paying the filing fee and a prisoner authorization.

Severance

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 legal or factual questions. Rule 21 allows a court to separate claims when doing so would promote fairness and efficient case management, even without finding that the original joinder was improper.

The court concluded that the practical problems of managing a lawsuit brought by multiple detained people proceeding without lawyers justified severance under Rule 21. Each plaintiff could represent only himself or herself, and White could not represent the other 18 plaintiffs. Each plaintiff also would have to personally sign future filings, but a detainee could be released or transferred and become unable to sign. In addition, security restrictions would limit the plaintiffs’ ability to communicate, share discovery, exchange copies of filings, and coordinate litigation. The court determined that these circumstances would likely cause piecemeal filings, delays, and missed deadlines.

Order

The court severed the claims of all plaintiffs. 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 18 other plaintiffs and to docket 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 order expressly did not decide whether the separate cases could be treated as related or consolidated. The court did not decide the merits of the detainees’ mattress or conditions-of-confinement claims. It certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying the filing fee for an appeal.