Agnew v. Department of Corrections, City of New York

Background

Ruddy Osias, Michael Guest, David Caraballo, and Joseph Agnew filed a self-represented complaint against the Department of Corrections, City of New York; Vincent Schraldi; Captain Reyes; Captain Hamlet; and Warden Carter. They alleged violations of federally protected rights concerning conditions of confinement at the Vernon C. Bain Center and the spread of the omicron variant of COVID-19. All four plaintiffs signed the complaint, but none paid the fees for filing the action or submitted an application to proceed without paying fees in advance and a prisoner authorization.

Severance of the claims

The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21, which allows a court to separate claims into different cases. Although the plaintiffs’ claims were similar because they concerned conditions at the same facility, the court concluded that managing the four-plaintiff prisoner case would create practical problems. The plaintiffs were representing themselves and could not act as one another’s lawyers. Each unrepresented plaintiff also had to personally sign court filings. Their detention, transfer, release, and security restrictions could limit their ability to communicate, share documents, and meet deadlines. The court concluded that separate cases would promote fairness and efficient handling of the litigation.

The court therefore severed Guest’s, Caraballo’s, and Agnew’s claims from the original action and directed the Clerk to open three separate civil actions. Osias remained the sole plaintiff in the original action. The order stated that the cases could later be treated as related or consolidated if appropriate, but the plaintiffs would not be treated as co-plaintiffs unless the court later ordered otherwise.

Filing-fee requirement

The court explained that a prisoner bringing a civil action must either pay the required fees or submit an application to proceed without paying them in advance, together with a prisoner authorization. Osias had submitted neither. The court gave him 30 days to pay $402 or submit the completed and signed application and authorization under the original docket number. The $402 consisted of a $350 filing fee and a $52 administrative fee; the order noted that the administrative fee does not apply to a person granted permission to proceed without prepayment.

The court directed that no summons issue at that time. If Osias complied, the action would be processed by the Clerk’s Office. If he failed to comply within the allowed period, the court stated that it would dismiss the action. After the three new cases were opened, Guest, Caraballo, and Agnew were each to receive a separate order requiring payment of fees or submission of the required documents.

Disposition

The court severed the claims of Guest, Caraballo, and Agnew under Rule 21, left Osias as the sole plaintiff in the original case, and directed Osias to pay the fees or submit the required documents within 30 days. The order addressed case management and filing requirements; it did not resolve the underlying claims about detention conditions or COVID-19.