Tamarez v. Hochul
- Gregory Woods
- 1:21-cv-10678
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 10
In Tamarez v. Hochul, Judge Swain separated the plaintiffs’ claims, denied anonymous filing, and required Tamarez to pay fees or submit forms.
Madelyn Tamarez and Pamela Buchbinder were affected by the order. Their joint case was separated into individual actions, both were required to proceed under their real names unless they sought voluntary dismissal, and each was required to address the filing-fee requirements in her own case.
What happened
In Tamarez v. Hochul, Madelyn Tamarez and Pamela Buchbinder, who were representing themselves, claimed that moving them from Rikers Island to Bedford Hills Correctional Facility violated their constitutional rights. They asked to use the names “Jane Doe” because they were defending criminal cases and believed the facility transfer was politically controversial.
The court separated their claims into two cases because prisoners representing themselves could not represent each other, might have difficulty communicating and signing filings, and could cause delays or missed deadlines. Tamarez remained in this case, while Buchbinder was assigned a new case. The court also denied both plaintiffs’ requests to proceed anonymously.
Judge Swain required Tamarez, within 30 days, either to pay the required fees or submit an application to proceed without paying fees in advance and a prisoner authorization. The court directed the clerk to open Buchbinder’s separate case and said that each plaintiff could ask to voluntarily end her case without prejudice if she did not want to proceed under her real name. The order did not decide whether the alleged constitutional violations occurred.
The detailed version
- Tamarez v. Hochul · No. 1:21-cv-10678
- Gregory Woods
- Jan. 3, 2022
Background
Madelyn Tamarez and Pamela Buchbinder filed a complaint without lawyers against Kathleen Hochul, identified in the caption as 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 and violated their constitutional rights. They also asked to proceed under the pseudonym “Jane Doe.” Neither plaintiff submitted an application to proceed without paying fees in advance or a prisoner authorization.
Severance of the claims
The court ordered the plaintiffs’ claims severed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21. Although the claims were similar and both concerned transfers between the same facilities, the court found that keeping the plaintiffs together would not be fair or efficient. Because they were representing themselves, neither plaintiff could act as the other’s attorney. Each would also have to personally sign filings, and their incarceration, transfers, security restrictions, and limited ability to communicate could interfere with sharing case strategy, discovery, motions, and notices. The court also found that a two-plaintiff case could lead to piecemeal filings, delays, and missed deadlines.
Madelyn Tamarez remained the sole plaintiff in this action. The clerk was directed to open a separate case for Pamela Buchbinder and to transfer copies of the complaint, the anonymity request, and this order into that case. The court noted that the cases could later be treated as related or consolidated if appropriate, but from this point they were separate actions and the plaintiffs were not co-plaintiffs unless the court later ordered otherwise.
Requests to proceed anonymously
The court denied both plaintiffs’ requests to proceed as “Jane Does.” Applying the Second Circuit’s factors for anonymous litigation, the court concluded that the plaintiffs’ statements about defending criminal cases and the public controversy concerning Rikers Island and Bedford Hills did not show that the claims involved matters sufficiently sensitive and personal to overcome the normal presumption that court proceedings are open and that party names appear in the case caption.
The court stated that either plaintiff could instead request voluntary dismissal of her case without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) within 30 days if she did not want to proceed under her real name.
Fees and required filings
The court explained that a prisoner bringing a civil action must either pay $402 in fees or submit a signed application to proceed without prepayment of fees and a prisoner authorization. The authorization permits filing-fee payments to be deducted from the prisoner’s account in installments, and the full filing fee remains due even if the case is dismissed or voluntarily withdrawn.
Tamarez was ordered within 30 days to pay the fees or submit the required application and authorization. The order states that the documents should bear docket number 21-CV-10678 (LTS). After Buchbinder’s separate case was opened, the court would direct her to submit the corresponding documents for that case.
Disposition
The court severed Tamarez’s and Buchbinder’s claims, denied both applications to proceed anonymously, directed the clerk to open Buchbinder’s separate action, and required Tamarez to address the filing fee. No summons was to issue at that time. The court stated that if Tamarez did not comply within the allowed period, the action would be dismissed. This order addressed case management, anonymity, and filing requirements; it did not decide the merits of the alleged constitutional violations.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.