White v. Department of Corrections

Background

Robert White filed this action 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 unacceptable, mandatory, random, or orchestrated strip searches during an incident allegedly occurring on August 29, 2025. Although all 28 prisoners were listed as plaintiffs, only White signed the complaint. White was also the only prisoner who filed a signed application to proceed without paying the filing fee and a prisoner authorization; the court had granted his application.

Rules and analysis

Rule 20 permits multiple plaintiffs to join one lawsuit when their claims arise from the same transaction or series of events and share a common legal or factual question. Rule 21 separately authorizes a court to sever claims when doing so promotes fairness, efficiency, and judicial economy.

The court found that the practical problems of managing a multi-prisoner lawsuit justified severance. Because the plaintiffs were proceeding without lawyers, each could represent only himself or herself, and White could not represent the other 27 prisoners. Rule 11 also requires each unrepresented party to personally sign court filings. The court noted that prisoners could be released or transferred, making it difficult for some to sign future filings. Security concerns would also limit their ability to discuss strategy, share discovery, and exchange court submissions, creating a risk of piecemeal filings, delays, and missed deadlines.

Order

The court severed all claims except White’s 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 27 other listed 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 stated that severance does not prevent the cases from later being treated as related or consolidated if appropriate, but the order did not decide whether that should happen.

The court directed the other 27 plaintiffs, after their cases are opened, to submit signed complaint signature pages and either pay the required fees or complete and submit 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 an appeal. The order did not decide the merits of the alleged searches or any other underlying claims.