Farrow v. Cordez
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:22-cv-05952
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 11
In Farrow v. Cordez, Judge Swain severed and transferred unrelated prison claims while leaving the Sing Sing claims in this case.
Justin Farrow’s claims from Attica, Clinton, and Great Meadow were separated into new actions and transferred to other federal districts; his Sing Sing claims remained in the original case. The defendants connected to each facility were assigned to the corresponding action.
What happened
In Farrow v. Cordez, Justin Farrow, who is incarcerated and representing himself, brought civil-rights claims about events at four New York correctional facilities. The claims involved different events, dates, and defendants, including alleged retaliation, discipline, medical treatment, sexual harassment, excessive force, and confinement conditions.
The court ruled that the claims from Attica, Clinton, and Great Meadow were not properly joined because they did not arise from the same events or share enough common legal or factual questions. It ordered those claims separated into three new cases. The Attica case was transferred to the Western District of New York; the Clinton and Great Meadow cases were transferred to the Northern District of New York.
The Farrow v. Cordez case remains open only for claims arising at Sing Sing, which the court said it would address in a separate order. Judge Laura Taylor Swain also stated that Farrow could proceed without paying filing fees in the original case, but that the courts receiving the new cases would decide whether that status continues there; she denied fee-free status for an appeal from this order.
The detailed version
- Farrow v. Cordez · No. 7:22-cv-05952
- Kenneth Karas
- Aug. 23, 2022
Background
Justin Farrow brought a self-represented civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 concerning alleged events at Attica, Clinton, Sing Sing, and Great Meadow Correctional Facilities. The complaint named different defendants and described different incidents at each facility. The allegations included retaliation, allegedly false disciplinary charges, sexual harassment, medical-care issues, excessive force, disciplinary proceedings, food and property problems, confinement conditions, and interference with access to materials and mail. Farrow also sought to assert a claim against the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
Severance and transfer
The court applied Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 18, 20, and 21. Rule 18 addresses the claims that may be joined against one defendant; Rule 20 addresses when multiple defendants may be joined; and Rule 21 permits a court to sever claims. The court concluded that Farrow’s claims arising at the four facilities were not properly joined in one action. Although Farrow alleged that broader conspiracies connected the events, the court found those allegations did not provide a plausible basis for joining otherwise unrelated claims.
The court therefore severed the claims arising at Attica, Clinton, and Great Meadow. It directed the Clerk of Court to open:
- A new civil-rights action for the Attica claims against the Attica defendants identified in the order, and to transfer that action to the Western District of New York.
- A new civil-rights action for the Clinton claims against the Clinton defendants identified in the order, and to transfer that action to the Northern District of New York.
- A new civil-rights action for the Great Meadow claims against the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, John Doe, and Jane Doe, and to transfer that action to the Northern District of New York.
The court relied on the federal venue statute and the statute allowing transfer for the convenience of parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. It reasoned that the relevant events occurred outside the Southern District of New York and that the documents and witnesses would reasonably be expected to be located in the districts where the claims arose.
Claims remaining in the case
The action remains open only for Farrow’s claims arising at Sing Sing Correctional Facility, against the Sing Sing defendants listed in the order. The court stated that it would address those claims by separate order. This transfer order did not decide the merits of the underlying allegations.
Other rulings
The court had granted Farrow permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees in the original action. It stated that the courts receiving the new actions would decide whether he could continue without prepaying fees in those cases. The court certified that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal.
Disposition
The court severed the Attica, Clinton, and Great Meadow claims, ordered three new actions opened, and ordered those actions transferred as described above. The Sing Sing claims remained in the original action for decision by separate order.
Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.