Reed v. Annucci

Background

Byron K. Brown and 29 other incarcerated people jointly filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. They alleged that prisoners at Sing Sing Correctional Facility had been denied the opportunity to attend religious services. The plaintiffs described the filing as a class action, but the complaint’s remaining allegations concerned Brown alone. Only 20 of the 30 plaintiffs signed the complaint. Brown was the only plaintiff who filed an application to proceed without prepaying the filing fee and a prisoner authorization.

The plaintiffs also jointly presented a motion asking the court to appoint counsel. That motion was signed by 19 plaintiffs, while the supporting memorandum and declaration were signed only by Brown.

Reason for Severance

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 generally permits multiple plaintiffs to join one case when their claims arise from the same occurrence or series of occurrences and share a question of law or fact. Rule 21 allows a court to separate claims or parties when doing so would promote fairness, efficiency, or manageability.

The court found that the plaintiffs’ claims did not arise from one common set of facts. Although they raised similar allegations about being denied religious services, each plaintiff would need to provide individual facts about when the denial occurred, how it affected that plaintiff, and what steps the plaintiff took to challenge it.

The court also relied on the practical difficulties of managing a lawsuit involving many incarcerated people representing themselves. A self-represented person may appear only for that person and may not act as another person’s attorney. Each unrepresented plaintiff would also need to personally sign court filings. Transfers, security restrictions, and limited communication opportunities could cause piecemeal filings, delays, and missed deadlines.

Disposition

The court severed the plaintiffs’ claims from each other under Rule 21. Brown proceeded as the sole plaintiff in this action. The other 29 plaintiffs were each assigned new case numbers, and copies of the complaint, the motion for appointment of counsel, and the order were to be docketed in those new cases.

The new cases were to proceed independently. Each plaintiff was directed 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 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 permission to proceed without prepaying the fee for an appeal.