White v. Department of Corrections
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-09121
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 10
In White v. Department of Corrections, Judge Swain severed 27 prisoners’ claims from White’s case and ordered separate actions without deciding the allegations.
Robert White remains the sole plaintiff in this case. The other 27 listed plaintiffs will have their claims opened as separate civil actions, while the Department of Corrections and the other named defendants remain defendants as identified in the complaint.
What happened
Robert White filed this case without a lawyer, alleging that he and 27 other prisoners were subjected to forced, unacceptable strip searches at the Otis Bantum Correctional Center on August 29, 2025. White was the only person who signed the complaint.
The court ordered the claims of the 27 other named plaintiffs separated from White’s case under Rule 21. The clerk must open a separate civil action for each of them and place copies of the complaint and this order in those cases. White will continue as the only plaintiff in this action.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain said that separate cases would be fairer and more efficient because people representing themselves cannot represent one another, every unrepresented plaintiff must sign court filings, and detention-facility security and transfers could cause delays. The order did not decide whether the alleged searches were unlawful and denied the plaintiffs permission to appeal without paying fees.
The detailed version
- White v. Department of Corrections · No. 1:25-cv-09121
- Laura Swain
- Nov. 3, 2025
Background
Robert White filed this action without a lawyer concerning an incident allegedly occurring on August 29, 2025, at the Otis Bantum Correctional Center. The complaint appears to allege that White and 27 other prisoners were forced to undergo mandatory, random, or orchestrated strip searches. Although the complaint listed all 28 prisoners as plaintiffs, only White signed it. White was also the only plaintiff who submitted a signed application to proceed without paying the filing fee and a prisoner authorization; the court had granted him that status.
Court’s reasoning
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 permits multiple plaintiffs to join one action when their claims arise from the same transaction or related events and share a question of law or fact. Rule 21 separately allows a court to sever claims when doing so is appropriate, including to promote efficiency and avoid unfairness, expense, or delay.
The court concluded that the practical problems of managing a lawsuit involving multiple unrepresented prisoners favored separation. Each plaintiff could represent only himself or herself, so White could not represent the other 27 plaintiffs. Also, each unrepresented plaintiff would have to personally sign future filings, but transfers or releases from a detention facility could make that difficult. Security restrictions would also limit the plaintiffs’ ability to discuss litigation strategy, share discovery, and exchange filings, potentially causing piecemeal submissions, delays, and missed deadlines.
Order
The court severed all claims brought by the plaintiffs other than White under Rule 21. White will proceed as the sole plaintiff in the existing action. The clerk 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 case. Those cases will proceed independently unless the court later orders otherwise. The court did not decide whether the new cases should be treated as related or consolidated.
The court also stated that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying appellate fees. It directed the clerk to mail the order to each plaintiff at the address of record. The order did not decide the merits of the alleged searches or any other underlying claim.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.