White v. Annucci

Background

Byron K. Brown and 29 other individuals incarcerated at Sing Sing Correctional Facility jointly filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a law allowing claims for violations of constitutional rights by people acting under state law. The plaintiffs proceeded without lawyers and styled the complaint as a class action. The complaint alleged that more than 200 prisoners had been intentionally denied the constitutional right to attend religious services on April 14, 2023. The court noted, however, that the remaining allegations concerned only Brown.

Only Brown requested permission to proceed without paying the filing fee in advance and submitted a prisoner authorization. The jointly filed request for appointment of counsel was signed by only 19 of the 30 plaintiffs, while the supporting memorandum and declaration were signed only by Brown.

Reason for the ruling

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 generally permits multiple plaintiffs to join one lawsuit when their claims arise from the same occurrence or series of occurrences and share a common legal or factual question. Rule 21 allows a court to separate claims even without finding that joinder was improper when keeping them together would cause prejudice, expense, delay, or other practical problems.

The court concluded that the plaintiffs’ claims arose from each person’s individual alleged denial of religious services. Each plaintiff would need to provide separate facts about when the denial occurred, how that person was affected, and what steps that person took to challenge it.

The court also found that the practical difficulties of managing a multi-prisoner case supported separation. Because the plaintiffs were representing themselves, none could act as a lawyer for the others. Each unrepresented plaintiff would also have to personally sign every filing. Transfers, security restrictions, and limited communication opportunities could lead to piecemeal submissions, delays, and missed deadlines. The court determined that separate cases would promote fair and efficient handling of the litigation.

Disposition

The court severed the plaintiffs’ claims from each other under Rule 21. Byron K. Brown remained the sole plaintiff in this action. The other 29 plaintiffs were to receive new case numbers, with copies of the complaint, the motion for appointment of counsel, and the order docketed in their individual cases. Each plaintiff was directed to pay the $402 filing fee or submit an application to proceed without prepaying fees and a prisoner authorization. The court stated that the new cases would proceed independently unless it later ordered otherwise.

The order did not decide the merits of the alleged denial of religious services. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal.