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 named White and 27 other prisoners as plaintiffs and alleged that they were forced to undergo unacceptable, mandatory, random, or orchestrated specialized searches while naked after an incident allegedly occurring on August 29, 2025. White was the only plaintiff who signed the complaint. He was also the only plaintiff who filed a signed application to proceed without paying the filing fee and a prisoner authorization; the court had granted him that status.

Reason for Severance

The court applied Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows a court to separate claims into different lawsuits. The court explained that although multiple plaintiffs may sometimes join claims involving the same events and common legal or factual questions, severance may still be appropriate when separate cases would promote fairness, efficiency, and judicial economy.

The court identified several practical problems with continuing the case as a 28-plaintiff lawsuit. Plaintiffs without lawyers may represent only themselves, so White could not represent the other 27 plaintiffs. Each unrepresented plaintiff also would have to personally sign every future filing. Because people held in detention may be released or transferred, some plaintiffs might be unable to sign documents when needed. The court also said that security restrictions would likely limit the plaintiffs’ ability to communicate, share evidence, and coordinate their submissions, causing delays and missed deadlines.

Order

The court severed the claims of all plaintiffs except Robert White from this action under Rule 21. White will proceed as the sole plaintiff in the original case. The Clerk of Court must open a separate civil action, with a new docket number, for each of the other 27 named plaintiffs and file a copy of the complaint and this order in each new case. Those cases will proceed independently unless the court later orders otherwise. The court directed the other plaintiffs to submit signed complaint signature pages and either pay the required fees or submit completed applications to proceed without paying the filing fee and prisoner authorizations.

The order did not decide whether the new cases could later be treated as related or consolidated. It also did not decide the merits of the alleged searches or any other underlying claims. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying the filing fee for purposes of an appeal. The court directed the Clerk to mail the order to each plaintiff at the address on record.