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 appears to allege that White and 27 other prisoners were forced to undergo unacceptable mandatory random or orchestrated specialized strip searches during an incident on August 29, 2025. The complaint listed all 28 prisoners as plaintiffs, but only White signed it. White was also the only plaintiff who filed a signed application to proceed without paying the filing fee and a prisoner authorization. The court had granted White permission to proceed without paying the fee.

Rules and analysis

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 allows multiple plaintiffs to join one case when their claims arise from the same event or related events and share a legal or factual question. Rule 21 permits a court to separate claims when doing so will promote fairness, efficiency, and effective case management, even without finding that the plaintiffs’ joinder violated Rule 20.

The court concluded that the practical difficulties of managing this case justified separation. Because the plaintiffs were proceeding without lawyers, each could represent only himself or herself, and White could not represent the other 27 plaintiffs. Each unrepresented plaintiff would also have to personally sign future filings. The court noted that prisoners at a detention facility could be released or transferred, making it likely that some plaintiffs would be unable to sign documents. The court also cited security restrictions that would limit the prisoners’ ability to discuss strategy, share discovery, or exchange copies of their filings. In the court’s view, those circumstances could cause piecemeal filings, delays, and missed deadlines.

Ruling and effect

The court severed all claims belonging to the 27 plaintiffs other than White from the original action under Rule 21. White will proceed as the sole plaintiff in the original case. The Clerk of Court must open 27 new civil actions, each with its own docket number, and file the complaint and this order in each new action. The other plaintiffs will then be directed to provide signed complaint signature pages and either pay the required fees or submit signed applications to proceed without paying the fees and the required prisoner authorizations.

The court stated that the new cases will proceed independently and that the plaintiffs will not be treated as co-plaintiffs unless the court later orders otherwise. The order did not decide whether the new cases should be treated as related or combined, and it did not decide the merits of the alleged searches or any other underlying claims. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal from this order. Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the order on October 30, 2025.