White v. Department of Corrections

Background

Robert White filed this action without a lawyer while held at the Otis Bantum Correctional Center. The complaint listed White and 27 other prisoners as plaintiffs and alleged that they were forced to undergo mandatory, random, or orchestrated strip searches by force during an incident at that facility on August 29, 2025. White was the only prisoner who signed the complaint. He 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 his request to proceed without paying that fee.

Reason for Severance

The court applied Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows a court to separate claims into different cases. The court considered the rules for joining plaintiffs and factors including efficiency, possible prejudice, and whether the claims would involve different witnesses and evidence.

The court concluded that managing the case as one lawsuit would not be fair or efficient. Each person proceeding without a lawyer could act only for himself, so White could not represent the other 27 plaintiffs. Each unrepresented plaintiff would also have to personally sign documents. Because people held in a detention facility might be released or transferred, some plaintiffs might be unable to sign future filings. The court also cited security restrictions on communication and the limited ability of the prisoners to discuss strategy, share evidence, or exchange court filings.

Order

The court severed all claims except White’s from the original action. White remained the sole plaintiff in No. 1:25-CV-8711 (LTS). The court directed the Clerk of Court to open one separate civil action, with a new docket number, for each of the other 27 listed plaintiffs and to file a copy of the complaint and the order in each new case.

The new cases were ordered to proceed independently, and the prisoners would not be treated as co-plaintiffs unless the court later ordered otherwise. The court said the cases could later be treated as related or consolidated if appropriate, but the order did not decide that issue. The court also 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 the merits of the alleged searches or any other claim. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the order.