Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 3, 2025

White v. Department of Corrections

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:25-cv-09119
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
10
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

Robert White v. Department of Corrections: Judge Swain severed 27 prisoners’ claims into separate actions, leaving White as sole plaintiff.

Who this affects

Robert White remains the sole plaintiff in case No. 1:25-CV-8711 (LTS). The other 27 named plaintiffs are affected by the order because their claims must be placed into separate civil actions, where they must independently sign filings and address filing fees or applications to proceed without paying them. The opinion does not resolve the underlying claims against the defendants.

What happened

In Robert White, et al. v. Department of Corrections, et al., Robert White and 27 other prisoners were named as plaintiffs in a lawsuit alleging forced strip searches at the Otis Bantum Correctional Center. Only White signed the complaint.

The court decided that the prisoners’ claims should not proceed together because each person would need to sign court filings, White could not represent the others, and detention-facility security and transfers could cause delays and missed deadlines. It ordered the claims of the other 27 plaintiffs separated into individual lawsuits.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain left White as the only plaintiff in this case and directed the Clerk of Court to open a separate action for each other plaintiff. The court also denied fee-waiver status for any appeal because it found an appeal would not be taken in good faith.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
White v. Department of Corrections · No. 1:25-cv-09119
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Nov. 3, 2025

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, random, or orchestrated specialized strip searches at the facility on August 29, 2025. The complaint named all 28 prisoners as plaintiffs, but only White signed it. White 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 White that status.

Reason for Severance

The court relied on Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows a court to separate claims into different cases. It explained that, although multiple plaintiffs may sometimes join claims arising from the same events and sharing legal or factual questions, managing this multi-prisoner lawsuit would not be fair or efficient.

The court gave three main reasons. First, each person proceeding without a lawyer may represent only himself or herself, so White could not represent the other 27 plaintiffs. Second, each unrepresented plaintiff would have to personally sign court filings, but prisoners could be released or transferred and therefore might not be able to sign future documents. Third, security restrictions on communication between detained people would limit their ability to discuss strategy, share evidence, and exchange court filings, creating a risk of piecemeal filings, delays, and missed deadlines.

Ruling

The court severed all claims brought by the 27 plaintiffs other than White under Rule 21. White will proceed as the sole plaintiff in this action. The Clerk of Court must open a separate civil action, with a new docket number, for each of the other 27 plaintiffs and file a copy of the complaint and this order in each new action. Those cases will proceed independently unless the court later treats them as related or consolidates them. The court did not decide whether the cases should be treated as related or combined later.

After the new cases are opened, the court will direct the other plaintiffs to submit signed complaint signature pages and either pay the required fees or submit completed applications to proceed without paying those fees, along with prisoner authorizations. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied the plaintiffs permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal.

Judge

The order was signed by Laura Taylor Swain, Chief United States District Judge.

The authoritative version

Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.