Washington v. Walker

Background

Eleven petitioners held at the Robert N. Davoren Center on Rikers Island filed a petition seeking habeas relief, meaning a court order addressing the legality of their custody. 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 improperly 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 Petitioners’ Claims

The court applied Rules 20 and 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 20 addresses when multiple parties may join one case; Rule 21 allows a court to separate claims or parties when keeping them together would cause prejudice, expense, delay, or otherwise undermine fairness and efficiency.

The court concluded that the 11-person petition should not proceed as one action. Although the claims appeared similar at first glance, the court found that the petitioners’ charges, underlying facts, state-court proceedings, and alleged constitutional violations were different. The claims therefore did not present identical issues and were cluttered by additional issues specific to each petitioner.

The court also explained that people representing themselves may appear only for themselves and may not act as lawyers for other people. In addition, each unrepresented petitioner would have to personally sign filings. The court found that incarceration, transfers or releases, security restrictions, limited communication, piecemeal submissions, delays, and missed deadlines could make joint litigation impractical and unfair.

The court therefore severed the claims of William Harris, Randolph Maxwell, Jeffrey McVay, Cameron Walters, Clyde Reid, Jahsaun Washington, Rondell Halley, Mark Stevens, Shawn Scales, and Andrew Williams. Maurice Mayo remained the sole petitioner in this case, while the Clerk of Court was directed to open 10 separate habeas actions for the other petitioners and place a copy of the petition and this order in each case. The court noted that the separate actions could later be treated as related or combined if appropriate, but the petitioners would not be treated as co-petitioners unless the court later ordered otherwise.

Filing Fee Requirement for Mayo

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 the fee. The petition requested that the petitioners proceed without prepayment but did not show how they were unable to pay the fee. No response from the respondent was required at that stage. The court stated that if Mayo complied, the case would be processed under the Clerk’s Office procedures; if he did not comply within the allowed time, the court would dismiss the action.

Appeal Certificate

The court stated that the petition made no substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied and therefore directed that a certificate of appealability would not issue. The order did not decide the underlying legality of any petitioner’s detention or criminal proceeding.

Disposition

The court severed the claims of the 10 named petitioners, left Mayo as the sole petitioner in this case, directed Mayo to pay the filing fee or submit the required application within 30 days, and directed the opening of 10 separate actions. Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the order.