Farrow v. Cordez

Background

Justin Farrow, who was incarcerated at the time of the order and represented himself, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against state actors for violating federal rights. His allegations concerned events at Sing Sing Correctional Facility between 2019 and 2021. He alleged sexual harassment by two female employees, a false disciplinary report, excessive force, retaliation, due-process violations at disciplinary hearings, removal from the Inmate Liaison Committee, deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, deprivation of property, and denial of occasional meals.

The defendants included more than 20 individuals and the Sing Sing Program Committee. In an earlier order, the court had severed and transferred claims arising at other correctional facilities. Only the claims arising at Sing Sing remained in this case.

Improper Joinder

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 18 permits a plaintiff to bring multiple claims against one defendant. Rule 20 permits multiple defendants to be joined only when the claims arise from the same transaction, occurrence, or related series of events and share a common legal or factual question.

The court concluded that Farrow’s claims arose on different dates over two years, involved different conduct, and concerned different defendants. The court gave examples involving an allegedly false disciplinary report on October 18, 2020, an alleged excessive-force incident on April 19, 2021, Ramadan meals, and confiscated property. The court also found that Farrow’s allegations of a broad conspiracy did not plausibly connect the otherwise unrelated events.

The court therefore ruled that the claims were not properly joined in one action. It granted Farrow leave to amend so that he could include either all claims against a particular defendant or all defendants involved in a particular claim. The court directed him not to include numerous unrelated claims against different defendants merely because the events occurred at Sing Sing.

Leave to Amend

Because Farrow was representing himself and might be able to correct the joinder problem, the court granted him 60 days to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint had to replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint and had to identify the relevant defendants, events, dates, locations, injuries, and requested relief. The court stated that if Farrow did not comply and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

Pending Motions and Disposition

Farrow moved for payment of expert-witness costs and for appointment of counsel. The court denied both motions without prejudice to renewal. The court denied the expert-witness motion because the action could not proceed until Farrow filed an amended complaint limited to properly joined claims. It denied the counsel motion without prejudice to renewal after he filed a compliant amended complaint.

The court granted leave to file an amended complaint and denied the pending motions without prejudice to renewal. It also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The order did not decide the merits of Farrow’s underlying civil-rights allegations.