Buchbinder v. Hochul

Background

Madelyn Tamarez and Pamela Buchbinder filed a complaint representing themselves against Kathleen Hochul, the Governor of New York, and other defendants. They alleged that their transfer from Rikers Island to Bedford Hills Correctional Facility hindered their ability to participate in defending their criminal cases. They also asked to proceed under the pseudonym “Jane Doe,” stating that they were defending criminal cases and that there was a public political controversy about Rikers and Bedford Hills. Neither plaintiff submitted an application to proceed without prepaying court fees or a prisoner authorization.

Severance of the claims

The court ordered the claims severed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21. Although the claims were similar, the court concluded that managing one lawsuit involving two plaintiffs representing themselves while incarcerated would be impractical and unfair. Each plaintiff could represent only herself, and each would have to personally sign filings. The court also cited the possibility that transfers, release, security restrictions, limited communication, piecemeal filings, delays, and missed deadlines would interfere with joint litigation.

Madelyn Tamarez remained the sole plaintiff in the existing action. Pamela Buchbinder was to receive a new case number, and the complaint, the anonymity letter, and the order were to be docketed in that separate case. The court noted that the separate cases could later be treated as related or consolidated if appropriate.

Requests to proceed anonymously

The court denied both plaintiffs’ requests to proceed as Jane Does. Rule 10(a) generally requires a complaint to identify the parties, although courts may allow anonymous litigation in limited circumstances. The court determined that the plaintiffs’ statements about their criminal cases and the public controversy did not show that their claims involved sufficiently sensitive personal matters or a privacy interest outweighing the normal presumption that court proceedings are open.

The court stated that either plaintiff could ask to voluntarily dismiss her case without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) if she did not want to proceed under her real name.

Fees and required filings

The court explained that a prisoner must either pay the required fees or submit a signed application to proceed without prepaying fees and a prisoner authorization. The authorization permits deductions from the prisoner’s account toward the filing fee.

Tamarez was directed, within 30 days of the order, either to pay $402 in fees or submit the required application and authorization under the existing docket number. The court stated that no summons would issue at that time and that the case would be processed through the Clerk’s Office if she complied. If she failed to comply within the allowed time, the action would be dismissed. After Buchbinder’s separate case was opened, the court would direct her to submit the corresponding documents.

Disposition

The court severed Tamarez’s and Buchbinder’s claims, denied both applications to proceed as Jane Does, and issued the fee-related instructions described above. The order did not decide whether the transfers violated the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.