Mayo v. Walker

Background

Maurice Mayo, William Harris, Randolph Maxwell, Jeffrey McVay, Cameron Walters, Clyde Reid, Jahsaun Washington, Rondell Halley, Mark Stevens, Shawn Scales, and Andrew Williams filed one petition asking for relief from their detention. The petition was filed without lawyers and also purported to proceed on behalf of other detainees at Rikers Island. The petition alleged that New York City courts were unlawfully waiving constitutional rights to grand-jury proceedings, holding people on superior-court informations, and conspiring with district attorneys to violate constitutional rights.

Severance of the Claims

The court applied Rules 20 and 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 20 concerns when multiple parties may join one action; Rule 21 allows a court to separate claims. Although the petitioners’ allegations appeared similar at first glance, the court found that their individual criminal proceedings, charges, underlying facts, procedural circumstances, and alleged constitutional violations were not identical and involved subsidiary issues.

The court also reasoned that each unrepresented petitioner could appear only for himself, that every unrepresented party would need to personally sign filings, and that incarceration could make communication and coordinated litigation difficult. The court concluded that keeping all 11 petitioners in one case would be unfair and inefficient.

The court therefore severed the claims of Harris, Maxwell, McVay, Walters, Reid, Washington, Halley, Stevens, Scales, and Williams. Mayo remained the sole petitioner in this action, and the Clerk of Court was directed to open ten separate habeas corpus actions with new civil docket numbers for the other petitioners. Copies of the petition and the order were to be filed in each new action. The court noted that the separate actions could later be treated as related or consolidated if appropriate.

Filing Fee and Fee-Waiver Request

The petition requested permission to proceed without prepaying fees, but it did not show that Mayo or the other petitioners could not pay the $5 filing fee. The court directed Mayo, within 30 days, either to pay the fee or to complete, sign, and submit the attached application to proceed without prepayment of fees under the federal filing-fee statute. If he submitted the application, it had to identify docket number 1:22-CV-5810 (LTS).

No answer was required at that stage. If Mayo complied, the Clerk’s Office would process the case under its procedures. If he failed to comply within the allowed time, the court stated that it would dismiss this action. The orders for the ten newly opened cases would separately direct each remaining petitioner to pay the $5 filing fee or submit an application to proceed without prepayment.

Disposition

The court severed the ten petitioners’ claims, left Mayo as the sole petitioner in this action, and directed Mayo to pay the filing fee or submit the required fee-waiver application within 30 days. The court also stated that a certificate allowing an appeal would not issue because the petition made no substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. The order did not adjudicate the underlying detention claims.