Turner v. Annucci

Background

Byron K. Brown and 29 other incarcerated people jointly filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims against state actors for violations of federal rights. The plaintiffs were proceeding without lawyers. They alleged that prisoners at Sing Sing Correctional Facility had been denied access to religious services on April 14, 2023. The complaint was styled as a class action, but the opinion states that the remaining allegations concerned Brown alone.

The complaint was signed by 20 of the 30 plaintiffs. Brown alone submitted a request to proceed without prepaying the filing fee and a prisoner authorization. The plaintiffs also submitted materials seeking appointment of counsel, but those materials were not signed by all plaintiffs.

Why the Court Severed the Claims

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 generally permits multiple plaintiffs to proceed together when their claims arise from the same occurrence or series of occurrences and share a common legal or factual question. Rule 21 permits a court to sever claims even when joinder is not improper if keeping the claims together would cause prejudice, expense, or delay.

The court concluded that the plaintiffs’ claims did not arise from one common set of facts. Although the plaintiffs asserted similar claims about being denied religious services, each person would need to provide individual facts concerning when the denial occurred, how that person was affected, and what steps, if any, the person took to challenge the denial.

The court also relied on the practical difficulties of managing a joint case involving many unrepresented incarcerated plaintiffs. Each plaintiff could appear only for himself and could not act as another plaintiff’s lawyer. Each unrepresented plaintiff would also have to personally sign motions and other court papers. Transfers, security restrictions, limited communication, and limited opportunities to exchange documents could result in piecemeal submissions, delays, and missed deadlines.

Disposition

The court severed the plaintiffs’ claims from one another under Rule 21. Brown proceeded as the sole plaintiff in this action. The other 29 plaintiffs—Carlos Arriago, Terrence Turner, David Louime, Dennis Antwon, Robert Campbell, Gregory White, Shantee Brooks, Eligidio Lind, Teddy Williams, Hector L. DeJesus, Apolinar Roque, Ricardo Corbin, Terel Overton, Alex Martinez, Deshard Wright, Clayton Scott, Michael A. Crane, Kevin Bussey, Eric Pek, Vaughn Campbell, Ivan T. Ramos, Daniel Jones, Dwayne Reed, Ivan Seabrooks, James Scott, Alen Haymon, Alfonso A. Howard, Stephen Robinson, and Trevor Price—were each to receive a new case number. Copies of the complaint, the motion for appointment of counsel, and the order were to be placed in each new case.

Each plaintiff was directed to pay the $402 filing fee or submit an application to proceed without prepaying it and a prisoner authorization. The court stated that the cases would proceed independently, although it could later treat them as related or consolidate them if appropriate. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied the plaintiffs the ability to proceed without prepaying the fee for an appeal.

The order addressed case management and did not decide the merits of the plaintiffs’ allegations about access to religious services.