Garcia v. New York State Department of Correction
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-08557
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
Summa v. New York State Department of Correction: Judge Swain severed Garcia’s claims as misjoined and ordered a new case.
Robert Summa continues as the sole plaintiff in this case; Angel Garcia’s claims will proceed in a new civil action against the active defendants. The order concerns case structure and does not resolve the underlying claims.
What happened
In Robert Summa; Angel Garcia v. New York State Department of Correction, the plaintiffs brought claims concerning alleged prison conditions connected to a correction-officer strike. The court said Garcia did not provide facts describing how his rights were violated or showing that his claims shared facts or legal issues with Summa’s claims.
The court ruled that the plaintiffs could not proceed together under the federal rule governing when multiple plaintiffs may join one case. It severed Garcia’s claims, directed the Clerk of Court to open a new civil action for him with the active defendants, and allowed Summa to continue as the sole plaintiff in this case. The court did not decide whether either plaintiff’s claims had merit.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain also ruled that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal. The new case will proceed independently unless the court later orders otherwise.
The detailed version
- Garcia v. New York State Department of Correction · No. 1:25-cv-08557
- Laura Swain
- Oct. 14, 2025
Background
Robert Summa and Angel Garcia brought the action without lawyers against the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, several agency officials, and correction officers. The complaint concerned an alleged correction-officer strike that began February 17, 2025, and ended March 16, 2025. Summa alleged that the strike and its aftermath caused unconstitutional prison conditions, including extended cell confinement, lack of access to showers, family contact, religious services, programming, and time outside his cell. He also alleged discrimination in religious practices and said he experienced depression and anxiety.
The opinion states that Garcia did not allege facts supporting his claims. The court noted that the filings suggested Summa had added Garcia as a co-plaintiff, and that Summa’s grievance referred to Garcia as one of several other incarcerated individuals. Garcia later supplied the signature the court had required, but the opinion does not describe claims or prison conditions specific to Garcia.
Joinder analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 allows multiple plaintiffs to join one case when their rights to relief arise from the same occurrence or series of occurrences and when the case presents a common question of law or fact. The court concluded that those requirements were not met. Although the alleged strike was a shared underlying event, Garcia did not state facts showing how defendants violated his rights. As a result, the court could not determine that the conditions alleged by Summa were facts shared by Garcia. The court therefore found that the plaintiffs were improperly joined.
Severance and disposition
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21, a court may sever claims. Because the court found the claims improperly joined but concluded that both plaintiffs appeared intent on pursuing relief, it severed the action into two individual cases. Summa remains the sole plaintiff in No. 25-CV-6320. The Clerk of Court was directed to open a new civil action naming Garcia as plaintiff and all active defendants in this action as defendants, and to transfer specified filings to that new action. The court said the new case would proceed independently and that the plaintiffs would not be treated as co-plaintiffs unless the court later ordered otherwise.
The order did not express an opinion on whether the claims could be treated as related or consolidated under other federal court rules. It also certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. Judge Laura Taylor Swain did not decide the merits of either plaintiff’s underlying claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.