White v. Department of Corrections

Background

Robert White filed the action without a lawyer while being held at the Otis Bantum Correctional Center on Rikers Island. The complaint appeared to assert claims on behalf of White and 27 other named prisoners based on an alleged August 29, 2025 incident involving forced strip searches. White was the only prisoner who signed the complaint and the only prisoner who submitted a signed application to proceed without prepaying filing fees and a prisoner authorization. The court had granted White’s application.

Rules and analysis

Rule 20 permits multiple plaintiffs to join one lawsuit when their claims arise from the same transaction, occurrence, or series of occurrences and share a question of law or fact. Rule 21 allows a court to separate claims, even without finding that joinder was improper. The court considered judicial economy, possible prejudice, and whether the claims would involve different witnesses and evidence.

The court concluded that managing a multi-prisoner lawsuit in which the plaintiffs were representing themselves would not be fair or efficient. Each unrepresented prisoner could appear only for himself or herself, so White could not represent the other 27 prisoners. Rule 11(a) also requires each unrepresented party to personally sign pleadings, motions, and other papers. Because prisoners could be released or transferred from the detention facility, some might be unable to sign later filings. The court also cited security concerns that would limit the prisoners’ ability to discuss strategy, share discovery, or exchange court submissions, potentially causing piecemeal filings, delays, and missed deadlines.

Order

The court severed all claims of the 27 other named plaintiffs from this action under Rule 21. Robert White will proceed as the sole plaintiff in this case. The clerk must open a separate civil action with a new docket number for each of the 27 other plaintiffs and file a copy of the complaint and this order in each new action. The court directed those plaintiffs to submit signed complaint signature pages and either pay the required fees or submit completed applications to proceed without prepaying fees and prisoner authorizations.

The new actions will proceed independently unless the court later orders otherwise. The order expressly did not decide whether the actions may be treated as related or consolidated. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal. The order did not decide the merits of the alleged searches or any other underlying claim.