Robert White, et al. v. Department of Corrections, et al.

Background

Robert White filed this action without a lawyer. He was being held at the Otis Bantum Correctional Center on Rikers Island. The complaint listed White and 27 other prisoners as plaintiffs and appeared to assert claims arising from an August 29, 2025 incident. According to the complaint, the prisoners were forced to undergo “un[acc]eptable[,] mandatory[,] random, or orchestrated high specialized (stripped naked searches) by force.”

White was the only plaintiff who signed the complaint. He was also the only plaintiff who submitted a signed application to proceed without paying the filing fee and a prisoner authorization. The court had granted White permission to proceed without paying the filing fee.

Reason for Severance

The court acted under Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which permits a court to separate claims into different cases. The court considered the rules governing when multiple plaintiffs may join one action, as well as judicial efficiency, possible prejudice, and whether the claims would require different witnesses and evidence.

The court concluded that the practical problems of managing a case involving multiple unrepresented prisoners supported separation. First, a person representing himself or herself cannot represent other people in court. Because White did not claim to be a lawyer, he could not represent the other 27 plaintiffs. Second, each unrepresented plaintiff would have to personally sign every filing, but prisoners could be released or transferred and might therefore be unable to sign future documents. Third, security restrictions would limit the prisoners’ ability to communicate, share discovery, and exchange court filings. The court concluded that these circumstances could lead to piecemeal filings, delays, and missed deadlines.

Ruling

The court severed all claims of the 27 plaintiffs other than White from the original action. White was ordered to proceed as the sole plaintiff in the original case. The Clerk of Court was directed to open a separate civil action, with a new docket number, for each of the 27 other plaintiffs and to file a copy of the complaint and the order in each new action.

The newly opened cases were to proceed independently, and the prisoners would not be treated as co-plaintiffs unless the court later ordered otherwise. The court stated that severance did not prevent the cases from later being treated as related or consolidated if appropriate. It did not decide whether the alleged searches violated the law or resolve any other underlying claim.

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