White v. Department of Corrections

Background

Robert White, who was held at the Otis Bantum Correctional Center, filed this lawsuit without a lawyer. The complaint named White and 27 other prisoners as plaintiffs and alleged that they were forced to undergo mandatory, random, or orchestrated strip searches at the facility on August 29, 2025. White was the only plaintiff who signed the complaint. He was also the only plaintiff who submitted a signed application to proceed without paying filing fees and a prisoner authorization; the court had granted his application.

Court’s analysis

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 permits multiple plaintiffs to join one lawsuit when their claims arise from the same transaction or series of events and share a legal or factual question. Rule 21 separately permits a court to divide claims into separate cases when doing so would promote fairness, efficiency, or judicial economy.

The court concluded that the practical difficulties of managing a lawsuit involving multiple unrepresented prisoners supported dividing the claims. Each unrepresented plaintiff may act only for himself or herself, so White could not represent the other plaintiffs. Each plaintiff would also have to personally sign future filings. Because prisoners could be released or transferred, some might be unable to sign documents. The court also cited security restrictions that could limit the plaintiffs’ ability to communicate, share documents, and coordinate litigation, potentially causing delays and missed deadlines.

Order and effect

The court severed all claims of the 27 plaintiffs other than White under Rule 21. White remained 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 place a copy of the complaint and this order in each new case. Those cases would proceed independently, and the other plaintiffs 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, but it expressed no opinion on whether that should happen. The court also directed the 27 other plaintiffs to provide signed complaint signature pages and either pay the required fees or submit signed applications to proceed without paying them.

Judge Swain certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees for purposes of an appeal. The order did not decide the merits of the alleged strip-search claims.