Herbert v. Ginty

Background

Anthony Correa, Jeremiah F. Herbert, and Richard Vogel jointly filed an unrepresented complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint alleged that the plaintiffs, who were detained at Sullivan County Jail, were discriminated against, physically abused, and intimidated because of their Muslim faith; denied access to Friday-night Jumah services and an imam or outside chaplain; denied unspecified therapeutic treatment; and denied adequate law-library time and materials. The complaint also included an unclear allegation that at least one plaintiff was housed with an inmate whom officials had designated to be kept separate. The plaintiffs sought money damages and injunctive relief and labeled the action a class action.

The defendants named in the complaint were Captain James E. Ginty, Deputy Officer Ruggiero, Lt. Christopher Bini, Acting Sullivan County District Attorney Meagan Galligan, Assistant District Attorney Robert Zangla, and Frank J. LaBuda, a retired Sullivan County judge who was then in private practice. The opinion states that the plaintiffs did not explain the context of their claims against Galligan, Zangla, and LaBuda, and that those claims presumably arose from the plaintiffs’ pending criminal matters.

Severance analysis

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 generally permits multiple plaintiffs to join one action when their claims arise from the same occurrence or series of occurrences and share a legal or factual question. Rule 21 allows a court to sever claims even without finding that joinder was improper when severance better serves fairness, efficiency, and judicial economy.

The court found that the plaintiffs’ claims arose from their separate criminal matters and detention experiences. Although the claims were similar in alleging discrimination based on Muslim faith and denial of religious, law-library, and therapeutic services, each plaintiff had an individual criminal matter, religious beliefs, service needs, complaints, and grievances.

The court also emphasized that unrepresented parties may appear only for themselves and may not act as lawyers for one another. Each unrepresented plaintiff would have to personally sign motions and other filings. The court concluded that possible transfers or releases from the jail, security concerns, limited opportunities for communication, and difficulty sharing discovery and filings could cause piecemeal submissions, delays, and missed deadlines. It therefore determined that continuing as a multi-plaintiff action would not be fair or efficient.

Disposition

The court severed the plaintiffs’ claims from one another under Rule 21. Anthony Correa continued as the sole plaintiff in the original action. The Clerk of Court was directed to open separate civil actions for Jeremiah F. Herbert and Richard Vogel, using new docket numbers, and to docket copies of the complaint, each plaintiff’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee at the outset, each prisoner authorization, and the order in the corresponding new case.

The opinion states that each plaintiff’s filing-fee materials would be processed and that each prisoner must pay a full filing fee, particularly because the severance created multiple cases. It also states that severance did not necessarily prevent the cases from later being treated as related or consolidated if appropriate. The court did not decide whether the plaintiffs’ underlying civil-rights allegations were valid.