Reid v. Walker

Background

Eleven petitioners—Maurice Mayo, William Harris, Randolph Maxwell, Jeffrey McVay, Cameron Walters, Clyde Reid, Jahsaun Washington, Rondell Halley, Mark Stevens, Shawn Scales, and Andrew Williams—filed a self-represented petition seeking habeas relief on their own behalf and on behalf of other Rikers Island prisoners. The petition alleged that every court in New York City was committing fraud, illegally waiving the petitioners’ constitutional right to a grand jury, holding them on superior court informations, and conspiring with district attorneys to violate their constitutional rights.

Severance of the claims

The court applied Rules 20 and 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 20 governs when multiple litigants may join one action; Rule 21 allows a court to separate claims when doing so would promote fairness and efficiency. The court explained that although the petitioners’ claims appeared similar at first glance, their criminal charges, underlying facts, state-court proceedings, procedural circumstances, and alleged constitutional violations were different.

The court identified additional problems with proceeding as one 11-person case. Each self-represented petitioner could appear only for himself and could not act as another petitioner’s attorney. Each unrepresented petitioner would also have to personally sign filings. The court further found that incarceration, transfers, release, security restrictions, limited communication, piecemeal filings, delays, and missed deadlines could make joint litigation impractical.

The court therefore severed the claims of Harris, Maxwell, McVay, Walters, Reid, Washington, Halley, Stevens, Scales, and Williams under Rule 21. Mayo remained the sole petitioner in this action. The Clerk of Court was directed to open ten separate habeas actions for the other petitioners, assign new civil docket numbers, and place a copy of the petition and the order in each case. The court noted that the separate actions could later be treated as related or consolidated if appropriate.

Filing-fee requirement for Mayo

The petition requested permission to proceed without prepaying the filing fee, but it did not show that the petitioners were unable to pay the $5 fee. The court directed Mayo, within 30 days, either to pay the $5 filing fee or to complete, sign, and submit an application to proceed without prepaying fees. No answer from the respondent was required at that stage. The order stated that if Mayo failed to comply within the allowed time, the court would dismiss this action.

The court directed that the other ten petitioners would receive similar filing-fee or fee-application instructions in their new cases.

Disposition

The court severed the ten petitioners’ claims, kept Mayo as the sole petitioner in this action, and directed Mayo to pay the filing fee or submit the required fee application within 30 days. It also stated that no certificate of appealability would issue because the petition made no substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. The order did not decide whether the petitioners’ underlying constitutional or detention claims were valid.