Scott v. Annucci

Background

Byron K. Brown and 29 other incarcerated people jointly filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims against state officials for violating federal rights. The plaintiffs represented themselves without lawyers and styled the complaint as a class action. They alleged that more than 200 prisoners at Sing Sing Correctional Facility had been denied access to religious services on April 14, 2023. The court noted, however, that the rest of the complaint’s allegations concerned only Brown.

Only Brown requested permission to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront and filed a prisoner authorization. The complaint was signed by 20 of the 30 plaintiffs. A purported joint request for appointment of counsel was signed by 19 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 join one case when their claims arise from the same occurrence or series of occurrences and involve a common question of law or fact. Rule 21 allows a court to separate claims when doing so is appropriate, including when keeping the claims together would cause prejudice, expense, delay, or management problems.

The court concluded that the claims arose from each plaintiff’s individual alleged denial of religious services, rather than from one common set of facts. Each plaintiff would need to identify when the denial occurred, how it affected that person, and what steps the person took to challenge it.

The court also found that the practical problems of managing a multi-prisoner case supported separation. Because the plaintiffs represented themselves, none could act as a lawyer for the others. Each unrepresented plaintiff would also have to personally sign filings. Transfers, releases, security limits on inmate communications, and limited opportunities to exchange litigation materials could lead to piecemeal filings, delays, and missed deadlines.

Ruling 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 case number, and the complaint, the request for appointment of counsel, and this order will be placed in each new case. The new cases will proceed independently from that point, although the court noted that related cases could later be consolidated if appropriate.

Each of the other plaintiffs will be directed to pay the $402 filing fee or submit an application to proceed without prepaying the fee and a prisoner authorization. The order did not decide whether the alleged denial of religious services violated anyone’s constitutional rights. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying the filing fee for an appeal.