Robinson v. Annucci

Background

Byron K. Brown and 29 other incarcerated plaintiffs jointly filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims against state officials for violating constitutional rights. They alleged that prisoners at Sing Sing Correctional Facility were denied the opportunity to attend religious services on April 14, 2023. Although the complaint was styled as a class action, the opinion states that the allegations after the general reference to more than 200 prisoners concerned only Brown.

Brown was the only plaintiff who requested permission to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront and submitted a prisoner authorization. The joint motion asking the court to appoint counsel was signed by only 19 of the 30 plaintiffs, and 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 lawsuit when their claims arise from the same event or related events and share a question of law or fact. Rule 21 allows a court to separate claims even when joinder is technically proper 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 experience of being denied access to religious services. Each plaintiff would need to provide separate facts about when the denial occurred, how it affected that person, and what steps that person took to challenge it.

The court also emphasized the practical problems 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 plaintiff’s lawyer. Each unrepresented plaintiff would also have 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, conduct discovery, and meet deadlines.

Ruling and Effect

The court ordered that the plaintiffs’ claims be severed from one another under Rule 21. Brown would proceed as 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—would each receive a new case number. Copies of the complaint, the counsel motion, and the order would be placed in each new case.

Each plaintiff in the new cases would be directed either to pay the $402 filing fee or to submit an application to proceed without paying the fee upfront and a prisoner authorization. The court stated that the plaintiffs would not be treated as co-plaintiffs unless it later ordered otherwise. The court also noted that the cases could potentially be treated as related or combined later if appropriate.

Finally, the court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the appellate filing fees. The order did not decide whether any plaintiff was actually denied a constitutional right to attend religious services.