Halley 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. At filing, they were held at the Robert N. Davoren Center on Rikers Island. 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 information, and conspiring with district attorneys to violate their constitutional rights.

Severance of the petitioners’ claims

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 permits multiple people to join one action when their requested relief arises from the same event or series of events and they share a legal or factual question. Rule 21 allows a court to separate claims when doing so would promote fairness, efficiency, or judicial economy, even if joinder is not improper.

The court concluded that the eleven petitioners’ claims should not continue together. Although their allegations appeared similar at first glance, their criminal charges, underlying facts, state-court procedures, and alleged constitutional violations were unique. The court also noted that self-represented litigants may appear only for themselves; each petitioner would have to personally sign filings; incarceration could limit their ability to communicate; and a joint case could lead to piecemeal filings, delays, and missed deadlines.

The court therefore severed the action into eleven separate habeas corpus actions. Mayo would proceed as the sole petitioner in this action. The claims of Harris, Maxwell, McVay, Walters, Reid, Washington, Halley, Stevens, Scales, and Williams would be opened as ten separate actions with new civil docket numbers. The court stated that those actions could potentially be treated as related or consolidated later if appropriate, but the ten petitioners would not be considered co-petitioners unless the court later ordered otherwise.

Filing-fee requirement for Mayo

The petition requested permission for the petitioners to proceed without prepaying filing fees, but it did not show that Mayo or the others 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 prepaying it. If Mayo failed to comply within that period, the court stated that it would dismiss this action. No answer from the respondent was required at that time.

Disposition

The court severed the claims of the ten listed petitioners under Rule 21, kept Mayo as the sole petitioner in this action, and directed the Clerk of Court to open ten separate habeas corpus actions. It also directed Mayo to pay the $5 filing fee or submit the required fee-waiver application within 30 days. The court stated that no certificate of appealability would issue because the petition made no substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied.