Pinson v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

Background

Jeremy Pinson, Elmer Moreno, Ernesto Zaragosa-Solis III, Kevin Masa, Bruce Altenburger, Jayson McNeil, and Esther Welsh sued the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief and asserted claims under Bivens, a legal framework allowing certain damages claims against federal officials for constitutional violations, as well as claims under the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act.

The incarcerated plaintiffs alleged that Bureau of Prisons officials monitored their communications with The Marshall Project after the organization contacted them for information about the Prison Rape Elimination Act and the Bureau’s alleged failure to protect people in its custody from sexual assault. They alleged threats of retaliatory transfers and long-term segregation, investigations, transfers to different facilities, and other forms of retaliation. Welsh alleged that her communications with Pinson were rejected by multiple Bureau of Prisons facilities without notice or an opportunity to challenge the rejections. The plaintiffs also alleged that the Bureau ignored their Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act requests.

Severance analysis

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 permits multiple plaintiffs to join one lawsuit 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 sever claims even without finding that joinder was improper when severance would promote fairness, efficiency, and judicial economy.

The court found that each plaintiff had unique circumstances, including incarceration status and location, custody classification, the facts surrounding the alleged retaliation, the officials allegedly responsible, and the circumstances of any information requests. Each plaintiff would need to provide individual facts about communications with The Marshall Project, alleged retaliation, and—if applicable—completion of administrative procedures for a Freedom of Information Act request. The court therefore found it unclear whether the claims arose from the same events or shared common legal or factual questions.

The court also relied on the practical difficulties of managing a multi-plaintiff case involving people held at different Bureau of Prisons facilities and a non-incarcerated plaintiff. Because the plaintiffs were representing themselves, each could appear only for themselves and would have to personally sign filings. The court found that limited opportunities to communicate, security concerns, transfers, and difficulties sharing case materials could lead to piecemeal filings, delays, and missed deadlines.

Order

The court severed the claims of all plaintiffs under Rule 21. Pinson proceeded as the sole plaintiff in this action. The Clerk of Court was directed to open separate civil actions for Moreno, Zaragosa-Solis III, Masa, Altenburger, McNeil, and Welsh, and to docket the complaint, the order, and any corresponding applications to proceed without paying the filing fee in each new case.

The new cases were to proceed independently, although the court noted that the cases could later be treated as related or consolidated if appropriate. The court also stated that each prisoner would be required to pay the full filing fee and directed plaintiffs who had not submitted the required applications or prisoner authorizations either to do so or to pay the $405 filing fee. Finally, the court certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal. The order did not decide the merits of the plaintiffs’ constitutional, Freedom of Information Act, or Privacy Act claims.