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 alleged that White and 27 other prisoners were forced to undergo “un[acc]eptable[,] mandatory[,] random, or orchestrated high specialized (stripped naked searches) by force” during an incident allegedly occurring on August 29, 2025. The complaint named all 28 prisoners as plaintiffs, but only White signed it. White was also the only prisoner who submitted 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 Rules 20 and 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 20 addresses when multiple plaintiffs may join one lawsuit based on related events and common legal or factual questions. Rule 21 allows a court to separate claims when doing so will promote fairness and efficiency, even without deciding that the claims were improperly joined.

The court concluded that the practical problems of managing a lawsuit involving 28 prisoners representing themselves favored separate cases. First, each prisoner could appear only for himself or herself and could not act as an attorney for the others. Second, every unrepresented plaintiff would have to personally sign each filing, but prisoners could be released or transferred from the detention facility. Third, security restrictions could severely limit the prisoners’ ability to discuss strategy, share evidence, or exchange copies of filings. The court found that these circumstances could lead to piecemeal submissions, delays, and missed deadlines.

Order

The court severed the claims of every plaintiff except Robert White from this action under Rule 21. White will proceed as the sole plaintiff here. The Clerk of Court was directed to open a separate civil action, with a new docket number, for each of the other 27 named plaintiffs and to place a copy of the complaint and this order in each new case.

The newly opened cases will proceed independently, and the prisoners will not be treated as co-plaintiffs unless the court later orders otherwise. The court stated that severance did not prevent the cases from later being treated as related or consolidated if appropriate. It did not decide whether the cases should be related or consolidated, and it did not decide the merits of the alleged searches. The other 27 plaintiffs will be directed 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 court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The order directed the Clerk to mail a copy to each plaintiff at the address of record.