Lee v. Department of Corrections

Background

Michael J. Lee, who was detained at the Vernon C. Bain Center, filed a complaint without a lawyer against the Department of Corrections and other defendants. The complaint alleged that jail officials were not providing Lee and 49 other detainees with the means to protect themselves from contracting COVID-19. The plaintiffs sought improved detention conditions and consideration of their release. Only Lee submitted an application to proceed without prepaying court fees and a required prisoner authorization.

Reason for Severance

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 generally permits multiple plaintiffs to proceed together when their claims arise from the same event or series of events and share common legal or factual questions. Rule 21 allows a court to separate parties or claims when joint litigation would cause prejudice, expense, delay, or other case-management problems.

The court determined that, although the detainees’ claims had similarities, each plaintiff had individual health conditions, complaints about detention, and circumstances relating to possible release. The court therefore found it unclear whether their claims arose from the same events or involved common legal or factual questions.

The court also concluded that the practical problems of managing one lawsuit brought by many unrepresented detainees supported separation. Each unrepresented plaintiff would have to appear only for himself and personally sign filings. Because detainees could be released or transferred and had limited opportunities to communicate, the court found that joint litigation could produce piecemeal filings, delays, and missed deadlines. Separate cases would, in the court’s view, promote fair and efficient handling.

Ruling

The court severed the claims of all plaintiffs under Rule 21. Michael J. Lee would proceed as the sole plaintiff in this action. The other 49 named detainees were to receive separate civil case numbers, with a copy of the complaint and order docketed in each new case.

The new cases were to proceed independently unless the court later ordered otherwise. The order noted that the cases could still be treated as related or consolidated if appropriate. After the new cases were opened, the court would direct the other individuals to submit signed applications to proceed without prepaying fees and prisoner authorizations. Anyone who had not signed the complaint would also have to submit a declaration stating an intent to proceed as a plaintiff. The order did not resolve the detainees’ underlying allegations about COVID-19 protections or release.