Fields v. Rikers Island DOC

Background

Robert White filed a complaint challenging the mattresses issued to him and 18 other detainees at the Otis Bantum Correctional Facility on Rikers Island. The complaint listed the other detainees as plaintiffs, and the opinion states that they signed the complaint. A footnote adds that White appears to have been the only listed plaintiff who did not sign it, although he was the only one who submitted an application to proceed without paying the filing fee and a prisoner authorization. The court said it would separately direct White to submit a signed signature page.

Reason for Severance

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 permits multiple plaintiffs to proceed together when their claims arise from the same occurrence or series of occurrences and share a legal or factual question. Rule 21 allows a court to separate claims even without finding that the plaintiffs were improperly joined. The court concluded that judicial economy and fairness required separating these claims because this was a pro se, multi-prisoner case.

The court explained that each plaintiff representing himself or herself could appear only on that person’s own behalf and could not act as an attorney for the other plaintiffs. It also noted that each unrepresented plaintiff would have to personally sign motions and other filings, but detainees could be released or transferred before they could sign future documents. Finally, security restrictions would likely limit communication, sharing of evidence, and coordination among the detainees, creating piecemeal filings, delays, and missed deadlines.

Ruling

Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered the claims of all plaintiffs severed under Rule 21. 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. Those cases will proceed independently unless the court later orders otherwise. The order did not decide whether the cases could later be treated as related or consolidated, and it did not address the merits of the mattress-related claims.

The court certified that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees for purposes of an appeal. The Clerk was also directed to mail the order to each plaintiff at the address of record.