Guest v. Department of Corrections City of New York
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-00972
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Guest v. Department of Corrections, Judge Swain severed three plaintiffs’ claims and required Osias to pay fees or submit fee-waiver papers.
Ruddy Osias remained the sole plaintiff in the original action and had to pay $402 or submit an application and prisoner authorization within 30 days. Michael Guest, David Caraballo, and Joseph Agnew had their claims severed into three new civil actions and were to receive separate fee-related orders.
What happened
In Guest v. Department of Corrections, four pretrial detainees filed one lawsuit claiming that conditions at the Vernon C. Bain Center violated their federal rights regarding the spread of the COVID-19 omicron variant. They did not pay the filing fees or submit applications to proceed without paying fees upfront.
The court separated Guest’s, Caraballo’s, and Agnew’s claims into three new civil actions. It kept Osias as the only plaintiff in this action because having four unrepresented detainees litigate together could cause communication problems, delays, missed deadlines, and unfairness. The court did not decide whether the claims about detention conditions were legally valid.
Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered Osias, within 30 days, either to pay $402 in fees or submit signed paperwork requesting permission to proceed without paying the fees upfront. The court directed the Clerk to open separate cases for the other three plaintiffs and said each would later receive a similar fee-related order. No summons was issued at that time, and the court stated that this action would be dismissed if Osias did not comply.
The detailed version
- Guest v. Department of Corrections City of New York · No. 1:22-cv-00972
- Laura Swain
- Feb. 2, 2022
Background
Ruddy Osias, Michael Guest, David Caraballo, and Joseph Agnew filed one complaint concerning the conditions of confinement at the Vernon C. Bain Center and the spread of the omicron variant of the COVID-19 virus. The opinion states that they were pretrial detainees and were representing themselves. None paid the fees for filing the action or submitted an application to proceed without prepaying fees, along with a required prisoner authorization.
Severance of Claims
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 generally permits multiple plaintiffs to proceed together when their claims arise from the same event or related events and share a legal or factual question. Rule 21 also permits a court to separate claims when doing so would promote fairness and efficient case management.
The court concluded that the practical problems of managing a four-plaintiff case involving unrepresented detainees supported separation, even though the claims were similar. Each plaintiff could represent only himself, and each unrepresented plaintiff would have to personally sign court filings. The court also reasoned that detention transfers, release, security restrictions, limited communication, and the plaintiffs’ likely difficulty coordinating filings could lead to piecemeal submissions, delays, and missed deadlines.
The court therefore severed the case into four separate civil actions. Osias remained the sole plaintiff in the action bearing docket number 1:22-CV-0870 (LTS). The Clerk was directed to open three new actions for Guest, Caraballo, and Agnew, assign new docket numbers, and place a copy of the complaint and the order in each case. The court stated that the plaintiffs would not be treated as co-plaintiffs going forward unless the court later ordered otherwise. It also noted that separation would not prevent the cases from later being treated as related or consolidated if appropriate.
Filing Fees and Required Papers
The court stated that a prisoner must either pay $402 in filing and administrative fees or submit a completed and signed application to proceed without prepaying fees, together with a prisoner authorization. If permission is granted, the $350 filing fee is collected in installments from the prisoner’s trust account; the $52 administrative fee does not apply to a person granted that status.
Osias had submitted neither the application nor the authorization. The court gave him 30 days from the order’s date to pay the $402 or submit the completed and signed forms under docket number 1:22-CV-0870 (LTS). The court directed that Guest, Caraballo, and Agnew would receive separate orders after their new cases were opened.
Disposition
The court severed the claims of Guest, Caraballo, and Agnew under Rule 21. It directed Osias to pay the $402 in fees or submit the required application and authorization within 30 days. No summons was issued at that time. The court stated that, if Osias complied, the case would be processed under the Clerk’s Office procedures; if he failed to comply within the allowed time, the court would dismiss the action. The order did not rule on the merits of the detainees’ claims about their confinement conditions.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.