Terry v. City of New York
- Louis Stanton
- 1:20-cv-08373
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Terry v. City of New York, Judge Stanton severed Terry’s and Truell’s claims into separate cases and required Terry to confirm participation.
Christopher Terry and James Truell, who were detained at the Manhattan Detention Complex and represented themselves. Terry remained in the original case, while Truell’s claims were placed in a new civil action.
What happened
In Terry v. City of New York, Christopher Terry and James Truell, who were detained at the Manhattan Detention Complex and represented themselves, alleged that a lockdown prevented access to the law library, grievance procedures, and 311 calls.
Judge Stanton ordered the claims separated because each person’s allegations involved different facts and because coordinating a lawsuit between two detained people could cause delays, missed deadlines, and unfairness. Terry remained the only plaintiff in the original case, while Truell was assigned a new case.
Judge Stanton also required Terry to sign a declaration confirming that he had read the complaint and intended to participate. The order addressed case organization and participation requirements; it did not decide whether the lockdown-related allegations were legally valid.
The detailed version
- Terry v. City of New York · No. 1:20-cv-08373
- Louis Stanton
- Oct. 16, 2020
Background
Christopher Terry and James Truell, both detained at the Manhattan Detention Complex, filed a complaint without lawyers. They alleged that a lockdown order prevented them from accessing the law library, filing grievances, and calling 311. Each submitted a request to proceed without prepaying filing fees and an authorization related to his detention.
Severance of the Claims
The court considered whether the two plaintiffs should continue in one action. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 generally allows multiple plaintiffs to join when their claims arise from the same event or related events and involve common legal or factual questions. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 allows a court to separate claims or parties when doing so would promote fairness and efficient case management.
The court found that Terry’s and Truell’s claims were similar in general nature but depended on facts specific to each person, including each plaintiff’s need for law-library access and individual experiences with grievances and 311 calls. The court also found that the practical difficulties of managing litigation involving two detained people representing themselves weighed in favor of separation. Each plaintiff would have to sign court filings personally, and their ability to communicate, share documents, and coordinate litigation could be limited by transfers, release, security concerns, and restricted contact. Those circumstances could lead to piecemeal filings, delays, and missed deadlines.
The court therefore severed the claims under Rule 21. Christopher Terry continued as the sole plaintiff under docket number 20-CV-8373. The Clerk was directed to open a separate civil action for James Truell and transfer copies of the complaint, Truell’s fee-related application and authorization, and the order to that case. The two cases would proceed independently, although the court noted that they could later be treated as related or consolidated if appropriate.
Declaration Confirming Participation
The court noted that Terry and Truell had previously claimed that another detainee filed complaints in their names without their knowledge or consent. The court directed Terry to submit a declaration confirming that he had read the complaint and intended to be a plaintiff in the action. The court stated that it would direct Truell to submit a similar declaration after opening his separate case.
Disposition
Judge Louis L. Stanton ordered the claims of Terry and Truell severed under Rule 21, allowed Terry to proceed as the sole plaintiff in the original action, directed Terry to sign and return the attached declaration, and directed the Clerk to open a separate civil action for Truell. The order did not decide the merits of either plaintiff’s lockdown-related allegations.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.