Truell v. City of New York
- Louis Stanton
- 1:20-cv-08646
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Truell v. City of New York, Judge Stanton severed James Truell’s claims from Christopher Terry’s case and ordered separate proceedings.
James Truell and Christopher Terry were affected. Terry remained in the original case, while Truell’s claims were severed and assigned to a new civil action; both were directed to confirm their intent to proceed as plaintiffs.
What happened
In Truell v. City of New York, James Truell and Christopher Terry, who were detained at the Manhattan Detention Complex, filed one complaint about lockdown restrictions on law-library access, grievances, and 311 calls. Both also asked to proceed without paying filing fees.
The court severed their claims under Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Christopher Terry remained the sole plaintiff in the original case, while the clerk was ordered to open a separate case for James Truell and transfer specified filings there. The court did not decide the underlying claims.
Judge Louis L. Stanton also ordered Terry to submit a declaration confirming that he had read the complaint and intended to participate as a plaintiff. The court said a separate order would direct Truell to submit the same declaration after his new case was opened.
The detailed version
- Truell v. City of New York · No. 1:20-cv-08646
- Louis Stanton
- Oct. 15, 2020
Background
Christopher Terry and James Truell filed one complaint while detained at the Manhattan Detention Complex. They alleged that a lockdown order prevented them from accessing the law library, filing grievances, or calling 311. Each requested permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees and submitted a prisoner authorization.
Severance analysis
The court considered whether the two plaintiffs’ claims should remain joined in one action. Under Rule 20, multiple plaintiffs may generally join when their claims arise from the same occurrence or series of occurrences and share a question of law or fact. Rule 21 permits a court to sever claims or parties when doing so would promote fairness, efficiency, and judicial economy, including when the claims involve different facts, witnesses, or evidence.
The court found that Terry’s and Truell’s claims were similar in nature but based on facts specific to each plaintiff. Each had an individual need for law-library access and separate experiences involving grievances and 311 calls. The court also relied on the practical difficulties of managing a pro se case involving two detainees. Because each unrepresented plaintiff must personally sign filings and neither could act as the other’s attorney, detention-facility transfers, release, security concerns, and limited communication could cause piecemeal submissions, delays, and missed deadlines.
Ruling
The court severed Terry’s and Truell’s claims under Rule 21. Terry was to proceed as the sole plaintiff under docket number 20-CV-8373. The clerk was directed to open a separate civil action for Truell, docket the complaint and specified filings in that new case, and mail the order to both plaintiffs. The court stated that the cases would proceed independently, although they could later be treated as related or consolidated if appropriate.
The court also directed Terry to sign and return a declaration confirming that he had read the complaint and intended to proceed as a plaintiff. It stated that a separate order would direct Truell to submit the same type of declaration after his new case was opened. The order did not resolve the underlying allegations or the requests to proceed without prepaying fees.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.