Scott v. Annucci

Background

Byron K. Brown and 29 other incarcerated plaintiffs jointly filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. They alleged that, on April 14, 2023, more than 200 prisoners at Sing Sing Correctional Facility had been intentionally denied their constitutional right to attend religious services. The opinion states that the rest of the complaint’s allegations concerned only Brown. The complaint was signed by 20 of the 30 plaintiffs. Brown alone submitted an application to proceed without prepaying filing fees and a prisoner authorization. The plaintiffs also jointly submitted a motion seeking appointment of counsel, but that motion was signed by only 19 plaintiffs, while its supporting memorandum and declaration were signed only by Brown.

The plaintiffs styled the matter as a class action. The court did not address whether the case could proceed as a class action, whether the alleged denial of religious services violated the Constitution, or whether any plaintiff was entitled to relief.

Severance analysis

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 generally permits multiple plaintiffs to join one action when their claims arise from the same occurrence or series of occurrences and involve a common question of law or fact. Rule 21 permits a court to sever claims even without finding that joinder was improper when keeping the claims together would cause prejudice, expense, delay, or other case-management problems.

The court concluded that the plaintiffs’ claims did not arise from one common set of facts. Although the claims were similar because they concerned alleged denial of religious services at Sing Sing, each plaintiff would need to provide individual facts about when the denial occurred, how the plaintiff was affected, and what steps the plaintiff took to challenge it.

The court also relied on the practical difficulties of managing a multi-prisoner case. Because the plaintiffs were representing themselves, none could act as an attorney for another. Rule 11 requires each unrepresented party to personally sign each pleading, motion, or other paper filed on that party’s behalf. Transfers, releases, security restrictions, and limited opportunities for communication could produce piecemeal filings, delays, and missed deadlines. The court found that separate cases would promote fairer and more efficient litigation.

Order and effect

The court severed the plaintiffs’ claims from one another under Rule 21. Brown proceeded 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—were each assigned a new case number. The complaint, the appointment-of-counsel motion, and the order were to be docketed in each new case.

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, but the plaintiffs would not be treated as co-plaintiffs unless the court later ordered otherwise.

Appeal-related ruling

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and therefore denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal. The order was procedural: it addressed party joinder and case management, not the merits of the religious-services claims.