Wright v. Annucci

Background

Byron K. Brown and 29 other incarcerated plaintiffs jointly filed a complaint without lawyers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows claims against state actors for violating federal rights. They described an alleged denial of access to religious services at Sing Sing Correctional Facility. Although the plaintiffs characterized the complaint as a class action, the court stated that the allegations after the general description concerned only Brown.

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

Reason for Severance

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 legal or factual question. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 allows a court to separate claims even when joinder is not technically improper if keeping them together would cause prejudice, expense, delay, or other case-management problems.

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

The court also found that the practical difficulties of managing a case involving 30 incarcerated people who were representing themselves weighed strongly in favor of separation. Each unrepresented plaintiff would have to personally sign court filings, and none could act as a lawyer for another. Transfers, security restrictions, limited communication, piecemeal filings, delays, and missed deadlines could make joint litigation ineffective.

Ruling and Effect

The court severed the plaintiffs’ claims from one another under Rule 21. Brown remained the sole plaintiff in this action. The other 29 plaintiffs were to receive separate civil case numbers, with copies of the complaint, the counsel motion, and the order filed in each new case. Those cases were 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 stated that the plaintiffs would not be treated as co-plaintiffs unless it later ordered otherwise. It also explained that separation did not prevent the cases from later being treated as related or consolidated if appropriate.

The court separately certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The order did not decide the merits of the alleged denial of religious services and did not dismiss those underlying claims.