Basank v. Decker
- Analisa Torres
- 1:20-cv-02518
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Basank v. Decker, Judge Torres denied adding ten petitioners to a detention case because of forum-shopping concerns.
The existing petitioners’ request to add ten proposed petitioners was denied; the proposed petitioners may file their own petition for random assignment.
What happened
Basank v. Decker involved a request by existing petitioners to add ten people to their petition challenging detention.
The petitioners relied on a rule allowing courts to add parties. The court concluded that adding the proposed petitioners could create the appearance that the parties were seeking a favorable court.
Judge Analisa Torres denied the request. The proposed petitioners may immediately file their own petition with the Clerk of Court for random assignment.
The detailed version
- Basank v. Decker · No. 1:20-cv-02518
- Analisa Torres
- Apr. 2, 2020
Background
The petitioners moved to amend their petition for a writ of habeas corpus—a court petition challenging a person’s detention—to add ten proposed petitioners: Kenny Alfaro, Milton Barbecho, Thierry Barnebougle, Felipe Diaz Presbot, Nathaniel Lawrence, Edson Louis, Fredy Olaya Lugo, Jose Molina, Job Velasquez Estrada, and Josue Vallejo.
Legal standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 allows a court, on motion or on its own, to add or remove a party on appropriate terms. The decision is within the district court’s discretion.
Court’s reasoning
The court concluded that adding the proposed petitioners could adversely affect the judicial system because it might create the appearance that the parties were engaging in “forum shopping,” meaning seeking to have a case heard by a preferred court or judge. The opinion cited an earlier Southern District of New York order involving a similar request.
Disposition
Judge Analisa Torres DENIED the petitioners’ request to add the proposed petitioners. The proposed petitioners may immediately refile their petition with the Clerk of Court for random assignment. The order did not decide the underlying detention claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.