McVay v. Walker

Background

Eleven petitioners filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus on their own behalf and on behalf of other prisoners at Rikers Island. At the time of filing, the petitioners were held in the Robert N. Davoren Center. The petition alleged that every court in New York City was committing fraud by illegally waiving the petitioners’ constitutional right to a grand jury and holding them on superior-court informations, and that the courts were conspiring with district attorneys to violate their constitutional rights.

The petitioners were Maurice Mayo, William Harris, Randolph Maxwell, Jeffrey McVay, Cameron Walters, Clyde Reid, Jahsaun Washington, Rondell Halley, Mark Stevens, Shawn Scales, and Andrew Williams. The case was captioned with S. Walker, identified as warden at R.N.D.C. C-74, as the respondent.

Severance of the Petitioners’ Claims

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 generally permits multiple people to join one action when their claims arise from the same event or series of events and share a legal or factual question. Rule 21 allows a court to separate claims when doing so would better serve fairness, efficiency, or judicial economy.

The court concluded that the 11-person case should be divided. Although the claims initially appeared similar, the petitioners’ state-court criminal proceedings involved different circumstances, charges, facts, and procedural contexts. Their alleged constitutional violations therefore were not identical and included separate subsidiary issues.

The court also relied on the petitioners’ pro se status. A person proceeding without a lawyer may represent only himself and may not act as another person’s attorney. In addition, each unrepresented petitioner would have to personally sign filings. The court found that incarceration, transfers or releases, security restrictions, and limited communication opportunities could make it difficult for the petitioners to coordinate strategy, share information, and exchange filings. The court concluded that proceeding jointly would likely cause piecemeal submissions, delays, and missed deadlines.

The court therefore severed the action into 11 separate habeas corpus actions. Mayo would remain the sole petitioner in this case. The claims of Harris, Maxwell, McVay, Walters, Reid, Washington, Halley, Stevens, Scales, and Williams would be opened as 10 separate actions, each with a new civil docket number. The clerk was directed to docket a copy of the petition and the order in each new action. The court stated that the 10 petitioners would not be treated as co-petitioners unless the court later ordered otherwise, while noting that the separate cases could potentially be considered together if appropriate.

Filing Fee and Further Proceedings

The court stated that a habeas petitioner must either pay the $5.00 filing fee or submit a completed and signed application to proceed without prepaying fees. Because the petition did not show that Mayo could not pay the fee, the court directed him, within 30 days, to do one of those two things under the existing docket number.

No answer was required at that stage. If Mayo complied, the action would be processed under the clerk’s procedures. If he failed to comply within the allowed time, the court stated that it would dismiss his action. The court also directed that the 10 newly opened cases receive separate orders requiring each petitioner to pay the filing fee or submit an application to proceed without prepaying it.

Disposition

The court severed the habeas claims of the 10 named petitioners from the original action, left Mayo as the sole petitioner, and directed Mayo to pay the 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.