Albritton v. Fredella

Background

Jemal Albritton, who was incarcerated at Woodbourne Correctional Facility and represented himself, sued under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986, and 1988. He alleged that Lawrence Fredella, members of the New York State Board of Parole, Mary Grace Sullivan, and John and Jane Doe defendants violated his rights to due process and equal protection, retaliated against him, and interfered with his access to the courts.

Albritton alleged that the Parole Board denied him parole after relying heavily on information about murder and manslaughter charges for which a jury had acquitted him. He also alleged that employees connected with the Albany County Supreme Court interfered with his Article 78 challenge to the parole decision, including by sending him an unsigned order to show cause or a forged document and causing his state-court petition to be dismissed for failure to comply with service requirements. He sought injunctive relief and damages.

Severance of Claims

The court applied Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 18, 20, and 21. Rule 20 generally permits multiple defendants to be joined only when the claims arise from the same transaction or series of transactions and involve a common question of law or fact. Rule 21 allows a court to sever claims against a party.

The court determined that Albritton’s claims against Fredella and the parole officials arose from his parole interview and the denial of parole. His claims against Sullivan and the John and Jane Doe defendants arose from the filing and handling of his Article 78 petition in Albany County Supreme Court. The court found that these groups of claims involved different events, witnesses, evidence, and legal and factual questions. It therefore severed the claims against Sullivan and the John and Jane Doe defendants.

Transfer

The court concluded that the severed claims should be transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. The events underlying those claims occurred at Albany County Supreme Court in Albany, New York, and the defendants associated with those claims were employed there. The court stated that relevant witnesses and documents could reasonably be expected to be located there and that the Northern District appeared to be a more convenient forum.

The court transferred the severed claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and retained jurisdiction over Albritton’s claims concerning the denial of parole. The court expressly made no ruling on whether the severed claims were legally sufficient, leaving that issue for the Northern District of New York.

Disposition

The court severed the claims against Mary Grace Sullivan and the John and Jane Doe defendants and directed the Clerk of Court to transfer those claims to the Northern District of New York. Albritton’s claims against the remaining defendants concerning the denial of parole were to proceed under the existing docket number. The court also certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal.