Harris 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 self-represented petition for a writ of habeas corpus 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’ constitutional right to a grand jury and holding them on superior court informations, and that courts were 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 concerns when multiple people may join one case; Rule 21 allows a court to separate claims when doing so would better serve fairness, efficiency, or judicial economy. Although the claims appeared similar at first glance, the court found that the petitioners’ charges, underlying facts, state-court proceedings, procedural circumstances, and alleged constitutional violations were different.

The court also explained that self-represented litigants generally may appear only for themselves, that every unrepresented party would have to personally sign court filings, and that incarceration could make communication and coordinated litigation difficult. The court concluded that proceeding as one 11-petitioner action would likely cause piecemeal filings, delays, and missed deadlines.

The court therefore severed the action into 11 separate habeas cases. Mayo remained the sole petitioner in this case. The claims of Harris, Maxwell, McVay, Walters, Reid, Washington, Halley, Stevens, Scales, and Williams were to be opened as ten separate cases, each with a new civil docket number. The court stated that the separate cases could later be treated as related or consolidated if appropriate, but the ten petitioners would not be treated as co-petitioners unless the court later ordered otherwise.

Filing Fee

The petition requested permission for the petitioners to proceed without paying filing fees in advance, but it did not explain how any petitioner, including Mayo, could not afford the $5 filing fee. The court directed Mayo, within 30 days, either to pay the $5 fee or to complete, sign, and submit an application to proceed without prepaying fees under the filing-fee statute. If Mayo submitted the application, it had to identify docket number 1:22-CV-5810 (LTS).

The court stated that no answer from the respondent was required at that time. If Mayo complied, the case would be processed under the Clerk’s Office procedures. If he failed to comply within the allowed period, the court would dismiss the action.

Disposition

Judge Laura Taylor Swain severed the habeas claims of Harris, Maxwell, McVay, Walters, Reid, Washington, Halley, Stevens, Scales, and Williams. Mayo was directed within 30 days to pay the filing fee or submit a signed application to proceed without prepaying it. The court also ruled that a certificate of appealability would not issue because the petition did not make a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied.