Azor-El v. New York City Department of Corrections

Background

Ten plaintiffs jointly filed a self-represented complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. They described the action as a class action and alleged that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to their health, safety, and well-being by failing to prevent their exposure to or acquisition of COVID-19. They also alleged that the defendants denied medical and mental-health services, cleaning materials and supplies, and adequate security staffing at the North Infirmary Command. In addition, they alleged violations of substantive and procedural due process based on delays in parole-revocation and criminal proceedings.

The plaintiffs also jointly filed an order to show cause and a motion for appointment of counsel. Ronnie Cole and Maurice Barnar had not submitted applications to proceed without paying the filing fee or the required prisoner authorizations.

Severance analysis

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 permits multiple plaintiffs to proceed together when their claims arise from the same occurrence or series of occurrences and share a common legal or factual question. Rule 21 permits a court to sever claims even without finding that joinder was improper when doing so is warranted by prejudice, expense, delay, judicial economy, convenience, or efficiency.

The court found that the claims arose from each plaintiff’s individual criminal case and detention rather than from one common set of facts. Although the plaintiffs were all detained on Rikers Island and asserted similar types of allegations, each had different medical conditions, bail and release statuses, criminal cases, and complaints about detention.

The court also relied on practical problems associated with jointly litigating a case while self-represented. Each plaintiff could appear only for himself and could not act as another plaintiff’s lawyer. Each unrepresented plaintiff would also have to personally sign pleadings and motions. The court determined that transfers or releases, security restrictions, limited communication, difficulty sharing documents and discovery, piecemeal filings, delays, and missed deadlines would make joint litigation unfair and inefficient.

Ruling

The court severed the plaintiffs’ claims under Rule 21. Jean Azor-El remained the sole plaintiff in this action. The clerk was directed to open separate civil actions with new docket numbers for Anthony Medina, James Carter, Dakwan Fennell, Ronnie Cole, Lance Kelly, Ramon Gomez, Antonio Graham, Maurice Barnar, and Anthony Brown. The complaint, the order to show cause, the motion for appointment of counsel, each plaintiff’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee and prisoner authorization, and the order were to be docketed in the new cases.

The court stated that the new cases would proceed independently and that each plaintiff’s filing-fee materials would be processed. The plaintiffs would not be treated as co-plaintiffs unless the court later ordered otherwise. The court also noted that severance would not prevent the cases from later being treated as related or combined if appropriate. The order resolved how the claims would proceed; it did not rule on the substance of the plaintiffs’ allegations.