Brown v. Annucci

Background

Byron K. Brown and 29 other incarcerated individuals jointly filed a self-represented complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint was styled as a class action and alleged that more than 200 prisoners at Sing Sing Correctional Facility had been intentionally denied the constitutional right to attend religious services. The court stated, however, that the remaining allegations concerned only Brown.

Only Brown submitted a request to proceed without prepaying the filing fee and a prisoner authorization. The complaint was signed by 20 of the 30 plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also submitted a motion seeking appointment of counsel, but that motion was signed by 19 plaintiffs, while its supporting memorandum and declaration were signed only by Brown.

Severance Analysis

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 generally permits multiple plaintiffs to join one lawsuit when their claims arise from the same event or series of events and involve a common legal or factual question. Rule 21 allows a court to separate claims or parties when doing so will promote fairness, efficiency, and manageable litigation, including when the claims involve different facts, witnesses, or evidence.

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

The court also relied on the practical difficulties of managing a lawsuit involving many self-represented incarcerated plaintiffs. Each plaintiff would have to personally sign filings, and none could act as an attorney for the others. Transfers, releases, security restrictions, and limited communication could make it difficult for the plaintiffs to discuss strategy, share discovery, or exchange copies of filings. The court determined that keeping the claims together would cause piecemeal submissions, delays, and missed deadlines, and would not promote efficient litigation.

Order and Effect

The court severed the plaintiffs’ claims from one another under Rule 21. Brown was to proceed as the sole plaintiff in this action. The other 29 plaintiffs were each to receive a new civil case, with the complaint, the motion for appointment of counsel, and the order docketed in each case. Those cases were to proceed independently, and 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 could later be treated as related or consolidated if appropriate.

The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied the plaintiffs the ability to proceed without prepaying the filing fee for an appeal. The order did not decide whether the alleged denial of religious services violated the plaintiffs’ rights.