Roque v. Annucci

Background

Byron K. Brown and 29 other incarcerated plaintiffs jointly filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. They alleged that, on April 14, 2023, more than 200 prisoners at Sing Sing Correctional Facility had been intentionally denied the right to attend religious services. The complaint was styled as a class action, but the opinion states that the remaining allegations concerned only Brown.

Only 20 of the 30 plaintiffs signed the complaint. Brown was the only plaintiff who submitted an application to proceed without prepaying the filing fee and a prisoner authorization. The plaintiffs also purported to jointly move for appointment of counsel, but only 19 signed that motion, and Brown alone signed the supporting memorandum and declaration.

Reason for Severance

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 generally permits multiple plaintiffs to proceed together when their claims arise from the same event or related events and share questions of law or fact. Rule 21 allows a court to separate claims when joint litigation would cause prejudice, expense, delay, or other case-management problems.

The court concluded that the plaintiffs’ claims did not arise from one common set of facts. Although each plaintiff asserted a similar claim about being denied religious services, each would need to provide individual facts about 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 problems of managing a 30-prisoner, self-represented case favored separation. Because self-represented litigants may appear only for themselves, no plaintiff could act as another plaintiff’s lawyer. Each unrepresented plaintiff would also have to personally sign pleadings, motions, and other papers. Transfers, releases, security restrictions, and limited communication opportunities could cause piecemeal filings, delays, and missed deadlines.

Disposition

The court severed the plaintiffs’ claims from one another under Rule 21. Brown remained 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 assigned new civil case numbers. Copies of the complaint, the motion for appointment of counsel, and the order were to be docketed in each new case.

Each new case was to proceed independently, and each plaintiff was directed either to pay the $402 filing fee or submit an application to proceed without prepaying the fee and a prisoner authorization. The court noted that the cases could later be treated as related or consolidated if appropriate. The order did not resolve the merits of the alleged denial of religious services.

The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.