Campbell v. Annucci

Background

Byron K. Brown and 29 other incarcerated plaintiffs 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 opportunity to attend religious services on April 14, 2023. The court noted, however, that the remaining allegations concerned Brown specifically. Only Brown requested permission to proceed without prepaying the filing fee and submitted a prisoner authorization. The joint motion for appointment of counsel was signed by only 19 of the 30 plaintiffs, and its supporting memorandum and declaration were signed only by Brown.

Why the Court Severed the Claims

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 share a legal or factual question. Rule 21 permits a court to sever claims even without finding that joinder was improper when separating them would avoid prejudice, expense, or delay.

Judge Swain concluded that the plaintiffs’ claims did not arise from one common set of facts. Although they asserted similar allegations about being denied religious services, each plaintiff would need to provide individual facts about when the denial occurred, how that person was affected, and what steps, if any, the person took to challenge it.

The court also relied on the practical problems of managing a multi-prisoner lawsuit involving people representing themselves. A self-represented litigant may appear only for that person and may not act as another plaintiff’s lawyer. Under Rule 11, each unrepresented plaintiff would also need to personally sign motions and other court papers. Transfers, security restrictions, and limited communication opportunities could make it difficult for the plaintiffs to coordinate, share documents, and meet deadlines. The court determined that proceeding separately would promote fair and efficient resolution of the litigation.

Order and Effect

The court ordered that the plaintiffs’ claims be severed from one another under Rule 21. Byron K. Brown will proceed as the sole plaintiff in this action. The other 29 plaintiffs will each receive a new civil case number, and copies of the complaint, the motion for appointment of counsel, and the order will be placed in those new cases. Each plaintiff must pay the $402 filing fee or submit an application to proceed without prepaying the fee and a prisoner authorization. The plaintiffs will not be treated as co-plaintiffs unless the court later orders otherwise.

The court stated that severance does not prevent the cases from later being treated as related or consolidated if appropriate. It also certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying the fee for an appeal.

What the Order Did Not Decide

The order addressed case organization and filing requirements. It did not decide whether the alleged denial of religious services violated the plaintiffs’ rights or whether the defendants were liable.