Zaragosa-Solis v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

Background

Seven plaintiffs sued the Federal Bureau of Prisons under federal-question jurisdiction. They sought court declarations and orders requiring action. The incarcerated plaintiffs alleged that Bureau of Prisons officials monitored their communications with the Marshall Project after they began providing information for a story about the Prison Rape Elimination Act and the Bureau’s failure to protect people in its custody from sexual assault. They alleged threats of retaliatory transfers and extended segregation, investigations, transfers, rejected communications, and solitary confinement. The plaintiffs also alleged that the Bureau ignored their requests under the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act.

The plaintiffs asserted claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents for alleged First Amendment violations, along with claims under the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act. The opinion states that the plaintiffs were proceeding without lawyers.

Reason for Severance

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 generally allows multiple plaintiffs to join one action when their claims arise from the same occurrence or series of occurrences and share a common legal or factual question. Rule 21 allows a court to sever claims even without finding that joinder was improper when severance would avoid prejudice, expense, or delay.

The court concluded that each plaintiff had distinct circumstances, including incarceration status and location, the particular conditions of incarceration, classification within the Bureau of Prisons, the alleged retaliation, the officials allegedly responsible, and the circumstances of any information requests. Each plaintiff would need to provide separate facts about the communications allegedly protected by the First Amendment, the alleged retaliation, and—if an information request had been submitted—completion of administrative procedures before filing suit.

The court also found that keeping the case together would create logistical problems. Because the plaintiffs were proceeding without lawyers, each could represent only himself or herself and could not act as another plaintiff’s attorney. Each unrepresented plaintiff also would have to personally sign filings. Transfers between facilities, security concerns, and limited opportunities for communication could cause piecemeal filings, delays, and missed deadlines. The court concluded that separate cases would be fairer and more efficient.

Order

The court severed all plaintiffs’ claims under Rule 21. Jeremy Pinson will proceed as the sole plaintiff in this action. The Clerk of Court was directed to open separate civil actions for Elmer Moreno, Ernesto Zaragosa-Solis III, Kevin Masa, Bruce Altenburger, Jayson McNeil, and Esther Welsh, using new docket numbers and docketing the complaint, the order, and any corresponding application to proceed without paying the filing fee in each case.

The court stated that the new cases would proceed independently, although it could later treat them as related or consolidate them if appropriate. It also directed plaintiffs who had not submitted the required signed application and/or prisoner authorization either to do so or to pay the required filing fees. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied the plaintiffs fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal. The order did not decide whether the plaintiffs’ underlying First Amendment, Freedom of Information Act, or Privacy Act claims were valid.