White v. Department of Corrections
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-09134
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 10
In Robert White v. Department of Corrections, Judge Swain severed 27 prisoners’ claims into separate cases, leaving White’s case intact.
Robert White remains the sole plaintiff in the original action. The other 27 named plaintiffs were separated into individual civil actions and must separately sign filings and address filing-fee requirements.
What happened
In Robert White, et al. v. Department of Corrections, et al., Robert White and 27 other named plaintiffs alleged that they were forced to undergo strip searches at the Otis Bantum Correctional Center. Only White signed the complaint.
The court ordered the claims of the 27 other plaintiffs separated from White’s case and directed the Clerk of Court to open a new civil action for each person. Each new case will proceed separately, and each plaintiff will be directed to sign the complaint and either pay the required fees or submit an application to proceed without paying them.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain explained that separate cases would be fairer and more efficient because people representing themselves cannot represent one another, each plaintiff must sign court filings, and detention-related transfers and security restrictions could cause delays. The order did not decide whether the alleged searches were lawful, and it denied permission to appeal without paying fees.
The detailed version
- White v. Department of Corrections · No. 1:25-cv-09134
- Laura Swain
- Oct. 30, 2025
Background
Robert White filed this action without a lawyer concerning an incident allegedly occurring at the Otis Bantum Correctional Center on August 29, 2025. The complaint appears to allege that White and 27 other prisoners were subjected to forced, mandatory, random, or orchestrated strip searches. The complaint listed all 28 prisoners as plaintiffs, but only White signed it. White was also the only prisoner who filed a signed application to proceed without paying filing fees and a prisoner authorization; the court had granted White that status.
Severance decision
The court applied Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows a court to separate claims into different lawsuits. It concluded that the practical difficulties of managing a multi-prisoner case brought by people representing themselves justified severance in the interest of efficient case management.
The court explained that each person representing himself or herself may appear only on that person’s own behalf and cannot act as an attorney for the other plaintiffs. It also noted that Rule 11 requires each unrepresented party to personally sign court filings, while detention-facility transfers or releases could prevent some plaintiffs from signing future documents. In addition, security restrictions could limit the plaintiffs’ ability to discuss litigation strategy, share evidence, or exchange filings, potentially causing piecemeal submissions, delays, and missed deadlines.
Order
The court severed all claims except Robert White’s claims from this action. White will proceed as the sole plaintiff in this case. 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. The new cases will proceed independently, and the other plaintiffs will be directed to submit signed complaint signature pages and either pay the required fees or file completed applications to proceed without paying them.
The court did not decide whether the new cases could later be treated as related or consolidated. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The order did not decide the merits of the alleged strip-search claims.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.