Summa v. New York State Department of Correction

Background

Robert Summa and Angel Garcia brought this action against the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, several named officials, and correction officers. Both plaintiffs applied to proceed without prepaying court fees. After the court directed Garcia to sign the complaint, the court received his signed signature page.

Summa alleged that a correction-officer strike from February 17, 2025, through March 16, 2025, caused unconstitutional prison conditions. He alleged extended cell confinement without showers, family contact, or religious services; denial of programming, religious services, and time outside his cell; resulting depression and anxiety; and discrimination in religious practices. The opinion states that Garcia did not allege facts supporting his claims. It also states that the filings suggested Summa had added Garcia as a co-plaintiff.

Joinder and Severance

Under Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, plaintiffs may join one action when their claims arise from the same occurrence or series of occurrences and involve at least one common legal or factual question. The court found that these requirements were not met. Although the correction-officer strike was a shared underlying event, Garcia did not describe how the defendants violated his rights, so the court could not determine that the conditions alleged by Summa were facts shared by both plaintiffs. The court concluded that the action was misjoined.

Under Rule 21, a court may sever claims. Considering the misjoinder and the apparent intent of both plaintiffs to seek relief, the court ordered that the action be divided into two individual cases. Summa would remain the sole plaintiff in No. 25-CV-6320. Garcia would become the plaintiff in a new case, with all active defendants from this action named as defendants. The new case would proceed independently, and the plaintiffs would not be treated as co-plaintiffs unless the court later ordered otherwise.

The court expressly stated that the order did not decide whether the claims could be treated as related under Rule 13 or consolidated under Rule 42.

Disposition

The court severed Garcia’s claims from Summa’s claims and directed the Clerk of Court to open a new civil action for Garcia and file specified documents in that action. Summa would proceed as the sole plaintiff in this case. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and therefore denied the fee waiver for purposes of an appeal. The order did not decide the merits of either plaintiff’s underlying claims.