Farrow v. New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-07248
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 11
In Farrow v. Cordez, Judge Swain severed claims from three prisons and ordered transfers, leaving Sing Sing claims for a later order.
Justin Farrow’s claims arising from Attica, Clinton, and Great Meadow Correctional Facilities were separated into new actions and transferred to other federal districts; his Sing Sing claims remained in the original case for a later order.
What happened
In Farrow v. New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, Justin Farrow brought a self-represented civil-rights case about events at four correctional facilities. The claims involved different events and defendants at Attica, Clinton, Sing Sing, and Great Meadow Correctional Facilities.
The court ruled that the claims from the different facilities did not belong in one lawsuit because they did not arise from the same events or share enough legal or factual questions. It ordered the Clerk to open separate cases for the Attica, Clinton, and Great Meadow claims and transfer them to the Western or Northern District of New York, depending on the facility. The case remained open for the Sing Sing claims, which the court said it would address separately.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain made no ruling on whether Farrow’s underlying claims were valid. She also denied fee-free status for any appeal, while leaving the question of fee-free status in the new cases to the courts receiving those cases.
The detailed version
- Farrow v. New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision · No. 1:22-cv-07248
- Laura Swain
- Aug. 23, 2022
Background
Justin Farrow, who was incarcerated at Great Meadow Correctional Facility, filed this self-represented action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He asserted claims concerning events at Attica, Clinton, Sing Sing, and Great Meadow Correctional Facilities on different dates and involving different defendants. His allegations included retaliation, disciplinary proceedings, sexual harassment, medical care, food and confinement conditions, excessive force, property, mail, and access to legal materials. He also stated that he wished to bring 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. Those rules address when claims and defendants may be joined in one case and allow a court to separate claims. The court concluded that Farrow’s claims involving Attica, Clinton, and Great Meadow arose from different events and did not present common questions of law and fact sufficient to keep the claims together. The court also concluded that Farrow’s allegations about a broader conspiracy did not provide a plausible basis for joining the otherwise unrelated claims.
The court therefore severed the Attica, Clinton, and Great Meadow claims. It directed the Clerk of Court to open a separate civil-rights action for each facility’s claims. The new Attica action was to be transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of New York. The new Clinton and Great Meadow actions were to be transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. The court relied on the locations of the events and the expected location of relevant witnesses and documents.
Claims remaining in the original case
The original case remained open but was limited to Farrow’s claims arising at Sing Sing Correctional Facility against the defendants identified in the order. The court stated that it would address those claims by separate order. This transfer order did not decide the merits of any of Farrow’s underlying claims.
Other rulings
The court had granted Farrow’s request 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 actions. The court certified that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.