Scales 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 a joint petition asking for court review of their detention. The opinion says they were held at the Robert N. Davoren Center on Rikers Island when they filed. They filed without lawyers, on their own behalf and on behalf of other Rikers Island prisoners.

The petition alleged that New York City courts were unlawfully denying the petitioners a constitutional right to a grand jury and holding them on superior court informations. It also alleged that the courts were conspiring with district attorneys to violate their constitutional rights. The opinion does not decide whether those allegations were true or whether the petitioners were entitled to release.

Severance of the claims

The court applied Rules 20 and 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 20 addresses when multiple people may join one lawsuit. Rule 21 allows a court to separate claims when keeping them together would cause unfairness, expense, delay, or other case-management problems.

The court concluded that the 11 petitioners’ claims were not identical and were cluttered with separate issues. Their criminal charges, underlying facts, procedural settings, and alleged constitutional violations differed. The court also explained that each person representing himself could appear only for himself, not as another petitioner’s lawyer.

The court further found that incarceration could limit the petitioners’ ability to communicate, share information, coordinate strategy, and sign court filings. Joint litigation could therefore produce piecemeal submissions, delays, and missed deadlines. The court concluded that separate cases would be fairer and more efficient.

Rulings

The court severed the claims of Harris, Maxwell, McVay, Walters, Reid, Washington, Halley, Stevens, Scales, and Williams from this action under Rule 21. It directed the Clerk of Court to open 10 separate habeas corpus actions, each with a new civil docket number, and to place a copy of the petition and the order in each action. The court said the cases could potentially be treated as related or consolidated later if appropriate.

Mayo remained the sole petitioner in this action. The court directed him, within 30 days, to either pay the $5 filing fee or complete, sign, and submit an application to proceed without paying the fee upfront. No response from the respondent was required at that time. If Mayo failed to comply within the allowed period, the court stated that it would dismiss this action.

The court also stated that no certificate allowing an appeal would issue because the petition made no substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. The order did not reach the merits of the petitioners’ constitutional or detention-related allegations.