Rose v. The State of New York
- Analisa Torres
- 1:21-cv-03164
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Rose v. The State of New York, Judge Swain severed 41 detainees’ claims into separate cases while letting Darrell Rose’s case continue alone.
Darrell Rose and the 41 other detainees named in the complaint. Rose remained the sole plaintiff in this case, while the other detainees were directed to proceed in separate newly opened cases.
What happened
In Rose v. The State of New York, Darrell Rose and 41 other detainees alleged that jail officials were not giving them enough protection against COVID-19 and sought money damages. They filed one complaint together.
The court ordered the claims separated into individual cases. It said the detainees had different circumstances and that managing one lawsuit for many unrepresented prisoners could cause logistical problems, delays, and unfairness. Darrell Rose remained the only plaintiff in this case; the other detainees were to receive new case numbers.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain ruled that the claims were severed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21. The order did not decide whether jail officials failed to protect the detainees or whether anyone was entitled to damages.
The detailed version
- Rose v. The State of New York · No. 1:21-cv-03164
- Analisa Torres
- May 7, 2021
Background
Darrell Rose, who was detained at the Vernon C. Bain Center on Rikers Island, filed a complaint without a lawyer against the State of New York and the Department of Correction. The complaint alleged that jail officials were not providing Rose and other detainees with the means to protect themselves from contracting COVID-19. The plaintiffs sought money damages. The complaint named 41 other detainees housed in the same dormitory; all but one signed the complaint, and most submitted applications to proceed without prepaying court fees and required prisoner authorizations.
Reason for Severance
The court explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 permits multiple plaintiffs to proceed together when their claims arise from the same event or related events and involve common legal or factual questions. Although the detainees’ claims had similarities, the court said each plaintiff had unique circumstances, including conviction status, health conditions, and complaints about detention. It therefore was not clear that the claims met the requirements for joining plaintiffs in one action.
The court also concluded that keeping the case together would be impractical even if joinder were proper. Because the plaintiffs were representing themselves, each could appear only for himself and could not act as an attorney for the others. Each unrepresented plaintiff also would have to personally sign motions and other court papers. The court cited the temporary nature of pretrial detention, security concerns, and limited opportunities for the detainees to communicate, share documents, and coordinate litigation. It found that a single multi-plaintiff case could lead to piecemeal filings, delays, and missed deadlines, and would not be fair or efficient.
Ruling
The court ordered the claims of all plaintiffs severed under Rule 21. Darrell Rose was to proceed as the sole plaintiff in this action. The Clerk was directed to open separate civil actions with new docket numbers for each of the other 41 detainees and to docket a copy of the complaint and order in each new case. Those cases were to proceed independently, although the court noted that it could later treat them as related or consolidate them if appropriate. The court did not rule on the underlying COVID-19 allegations or the request for money damages.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.