Haymon v. Annucci
- Cathy Seibel
- 7:23-cv-06922
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Haymon v. Annucci, Judge Swain severed 30 incarcerated plaintiffs’ claims into separate cases because their joint pro se litigation was factually and practically unmanageable.
Byron K. Brown remains the sole plaintiff in this case. The other 29 incarcerated plaintiffs will receive separate cases and must each address the filing fee through payment or an application to proceed without prepaying it. The defendants and the alleged religious-services claims remain involved in the separately assigned cases, but the court did not decide those claims’ merits.
What happened
In Haymon v. Annucci, 30 incarcerated plaintiffs jointly filed a civil-rights complaint alleging that prisoners at Sing Sing Correctional Facility had been denied access to religious services. Although the complaint described a broader denial, most allegations concerned only Byron K. Brown, and the filings were signed by only some of the plaintiffs.
The court concluded that each plaintiff’s claim would require separate facts about when the denial occurred, its effect, and any challenge to it. The court also found that unrepresented prisoners could not act as one another’s lawyers and would face practical problems signing filings, sharing information, and meeting deadlines.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain severed the claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21. Brown will remain the sole plaintiff in this case, while the other 29 plaintiffs will receive separate case numbers and proceed independently; the order did not decide whether their religious-services claims have merit.
The detailed version
- Haymon v. Annucci · No. 7:23-cv-06922
- Cathy Seibel
- Aug. 7, 2023
Background
Byron K. Brown and 29 other incarcerated individuals jointly filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against state actors for violating constitutional rights. The plaintiffs alleged that prisoners at Sing Sing Correctional Facility had been intentionally denied the right to attend religious services on April 14, 2023. They styled the case as a class action, but the court noted that the complaint’s remaining allegations concerned only Brown.
Only 20 of the 30 plaintiffs signed the complaint. Brown alone filed an application to proceed without paying the filing fee in advance and submitted a prisoner authorization. The purported joint motion for appointment of counsel was signed by only 19 plaintiffs, while the supporting memorandum and declaration were signed only by Brown.
Reasoning
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 generally permits multiple plaintiffs to join one case 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—meaning to separate them into different cases—when doing so will better serve fairness, efficiency, and case management.
The court found that the plaintiffs’ claims did not arise from one common set of facts. Although the claims were similar because they involved alleged denials of religious services at Sing Sing, 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 found that the practical circumstances of joint, unrepresented prisoner litigation supported severance. Because the plaintiffs were proceeding without lawyers, none could represent the others. Each unrepresented plaintiff would have to personally sign motions and other court papers. Transfers, releases, security restrictions, and limited communication opportunities could make it difficult for the plaintiffs to coordinate strategy, share discovery, exchange filings, and meet deadlines. The court concluded that proceeding as one multi-plaintiff case would hinder effective litigation and would not promote efficiency.
Order and effect
The court severed the plaintiffs’ claims from one another under Rule 21. Brown will 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—will each be assigned a new case number. The complaint, the motion for appointment of counsel, and the order will be docketed in each new case.
The new cases will proceed independently from that point. Each plaintiff will be directed either to pay the $402 filing fee or to submit an application to proceed without paying the fee in advance 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 filing fee for an appeal.
The order addressed case organization and filing requirements; it did not decide the merits of the plaintiffs’ allegations about access to religious services.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.