Sowell v. The New York City Police Department

Background

Randy Sowell filed this self-represented action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on behalf of himself and his minor daughter, D.D.S.S. He alleged that officials violated his rights through parole-related detention, refusal to discharge him from parole, conditions at correctional facilities, events involving homeless shelters, arrests, and other incidents. He also asserted claims on behalf of D.D.S.S.

The court had previously directed Sowell to amend his complaint to provide more facts supporting claims that he was detained beyond his required release date or held without legal justification. In the amended complaint, Sowell added claims and defendants connected to events in New Jersey, New York City correctional facilities, shelters, the New York City Police Department, and a Public Assistance Office.

Severance of unrelated claims

The court applied Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 20 and 21. Rule 20 generally allows multiple defendants to be joined in one case only when the claims arise from the same transaction or related series of events and involve common legal or factual questions. Rule 21 allows a court to separate claims or parties from a case.

The court found that Sowell’s claims arose from separate events and involved different defendants, witnesses, and evidence. The claims did not arise from the same transaction and did not present common questions of law or fact. The court therefore severed four of the five groups of claims from the current action. Because Sowell was self-represented, the court chose severance rather than dismissing claims that went beyond the limited permission to amend.

New Jersey claims

The court severed the claims arising from Sowell’s New Jersey arrest and criminal proceedings against Eric Shenkus, Megan Donnovan, Kathrin S. Weigel, Emily Buonadonna, and the Cape May Courthouse. The opinion states that the alleged events occurred in Cape May County, New Jersey, outside the Southern District of New York. It concluded that venue was not proper in the Southern District of New York for those claims and that the District of New Jersey was the proper venue.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), a court may transfer a case filed in the wrong venue when transfer serves the interests of justice. The court ordered these claims transferred to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Three additional actions

The court directed the Clerk of Court to open three separate civil actions for the following severed claims:

Claims remaining in the current case

The present action will proceed only on claims relating to Sowell’s parole, parole revocation, alleged unlawful detention under parole warrants, and claims he seeks to bring on behalf of D.D.S.S. The remaining defendants are Anthony Annucci, Cynthia Brann, Hubert Brown, the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, the New York City Department of Correction, and the New York City Housing Authority Albany Houses. The New York City Department of Correction will also be named in one of the new severed actions because the amended complaint included claims against it concerning both parole and correctional conditions.

Other ruling

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied self-represented status without payment of fees for purposes of an appeal. The order addressed case organization, venue, and the creation of separate actions; it did not decide the merits of the underlying claims.