Lind v. Annucci

Background

Byron K. Brown and 29 other incarcerated people jointly filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing certain civil-rights claims against state actors. They alleged that prisoners at Sing Sing Correctional Facility had been denied the opportunity to attend religious services. Although the complaint was styled as a class action, the court stated that the remaining allegations concerned only Brown.

The complaint was filed without lawyers. Only 20 of the 30 plaintiffs signed the complaint. Brown was the only plaintiff who submitted an application to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront and the required prisoner authorization. The purported joint motion for appointment of counsel was signed by only 19 plaintiffs, while the supporting memorandum and declaration were signed only by Brown.

Rule 21 severance

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 legal or factual question. Rule 21 allows a court to separate claims or parties when doing so would promote fairness, convenience, and efficient case management.

The court concluded that the plaintiffs’ claims did not arise from one common set of facts. Although each plaintiff asserted a similar claim involving denial of religious services, each would need to allege when the denial occurred, how it affected that person, and what steps that person took to challenge it.

The court also found that the practical difficulties of managing a joint lawsuit involving 30 unrepresented incarcerated plaintiffs supported separation. Because people appearing without lawyers generally may represent only themselves, no plaintiff could act as the others’ lawyer. Each unrepresented plaintiff would also have to personally sign motions and other court filings. Transfers, releases, security restrictions, and limited communication could lead to piecemeal filings, delays, and missed deadlines.

Order

The court severed the plaintiffs’ claims from one another under Rule 21. Brown will proceed as the sole plaintiff in this action. The other 29 plaintiffs will each receive a new civil case with a new docket number. The complaint, motion for appointment of counsel, and this order will be placed on each new case’s docket, and those cases will proceed independently unless the court later treats them as related or consolidates them.

The court directed each plaintiff to pay the $402 filing fee or submit an application to proceed without paying the fee upfront and a prisoner authorization. It also stated that the plaintiffs would not be treated as co-plaintiffs unless the court later ordered otherwise. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied the ability to proceed without paying the filing fee for purposes of an appeal.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain’s order addressed how the claims would proceed, not whether the alleged denial of religious services violated the Constitution or whether any defendant was responsible.