White v. Department of Corrections

Background

Robert White filed this lawsuit without a lawyer while held at the Otis Bantum Correctional Center on Rikers Island. The complaint alleged that White and 27 other prisoners were forced to undergo mandatory searches involving being stripped naked during an incident allegedly occurring on August 29, 2025. Although the complaint listed all 28 prisoners as plaintiffs, only White signed it. White was also the only prisoner who had submitted a signed application to proceed without paying filing fees and a prisoner authorization; the court had already granted White that status.

Why the court separated the claims

The court relied on Rules 20 and 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 20 addresses when multiple plaintiffs may join one lawsuit based on related events and common legal or factual questions. Rule 21 permits a court to separate claims when doing so will promote fairness, efficiency, and effective case management, even without deciding that joining the claims was improper.

The court found that keeping all 28 prisoners in one case would not be fair or efficient. Because the plaintiffs were representing themselves, none could act as a lawyer for the others. Each plaintiff would also have to personally sign future filings. The court noted that prisoners could be released or transferred from the detention facility, making some signatures difficult to obtain. Security restrictions could also limit the prisoners’ ability to discuss strategy, share evidence, or exchange copies of court filings, potentially causing piecemeal submissions, delays, and missed deadlines.

Ruling

The court severed all claims belonging to the 27 plaintiffs other than White. White would continue as the sole plaintiff in the original action. The clerk 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 original complaint and this order in each new action.

The newly opened cases would proceed separately, and the prisoners would not be treated as co-plaintiffs unless the court later ordered otherwise. The court did not decide whether the cases could later be treated as related or consolidated. It directed the other 27 plaintiffs to submit signed complaint signature pages and either pay the required fees or submit completed applications to proceed without paying fees and prisoner authorizations.

Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain also certified that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The order did not decide whether the alleged searches violated the law or otherwise reach the merits of the prisoners’ claims.