White v. Department of Corrections
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-09132
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 10
White v. Department of Corrections: Judge Swain severed 27 prisoners’ claims into separate actions while White’s case continued.
Robert White remains the sole plaintiff in the original case. The 27 other named prisoner plaintiffs must proceed in separate newly opened civil actions, subject to later orders about related cases or consolidation.
What happened
In Robert White, et al. v. Department of Corrections, et al., Robert White and 27 other prisoners jointly alleged that they were forcibly subjected to unacceptable mandatory strip searches at the Otis Bantum Correctional Center on August 29, 2025.
The court ordered the claims of the 27 other named plaintiffs separated from White’s case and directed the Clerk of Court to open a new civil action for each person. White will remain the only plaintiff in the original case, and each new case will proceed independently unless the court later orders otherwise.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain ruled that separate cases would be fairer and more efficient because the prisoners were representing themselves, each would need to sign court filings, and detention-facility conditions could hinder communication. The court did not decide whether the alleged searches violated the law and denied fee-free status for any appeal from this order.
The detailed version
- White v. Department of Corrections · No. 1:25-cv-09132
- Laura Swain
- Oct. 30, 2025
Background
Robert White filed this action without a lawyer. The complaint named White and 27 other prisoners as plaintiffs and alleged that they were forced to undergo mandatory, random, or orchestrated strip searches during an incident at the Otis Bantum Correctional Center on August 29, 2025. White was the only plaintiff who signed the complaint. He 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 his fee-waiver application.
Rules and Analysis
Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits multiple plaintiffs to join one action when their claims arise from the same transaction or occurrence and share a common legal or factual question. Rule 21 allows a court to separate claims even when joinder is not improper. Courts consider factors including efficiency, possible prejudice, and whether the claims involve different witnesses and evidence.
The court concluded that practical problems with managing a lawsuit involving 28 self-represented prisoners favored separation. Each self-represented plaintiff could appear only for himself or herself, so White could not represent the other plaintiffs. Each unrepresented plaintiff would also have to personally sign future filings. Because prisoners could be released or transferred, some might be unable to sign documents. The court further found that security concerns could limit the prisoners’ ability to communicate, share discovery, and exchange court filings, potentially causing piecemeal submissions, delays, and missed deadlines.
Order
The court severed all claims except White’s from the original action under Rule 21. White will proceed as the sole plaintiff in the original case. The Clerk of Court must open a separate civil action, with a new docket number, for each of the other 27 named plaintiffs and file a copy of the complaint and this order in each new case. The new plaintiffs will then be directed to submit signed complaint signature pages and either pay the required fees or submit completed applications to proceed without paying those fees and prisoner authorizations.
The new actions will proceed independently, and the plaintiffs will not be treated as co-plaintiffs unless the court later orders otherwise. The court expressly did not decide whether the new actions should be treated as related or consolidated. It also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for an appeal. The order did not decide the merits of the alleged searches or any other underlying claims.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.