Moreno 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 under federal-question jurisdiction. The plaintiffs sought court declarations and orders requiring action. The complaint asserted claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents for alleged First Amendment 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, threatened them with transfers and extended segregation, investigated them, and transferred them to different locations after they provided information for a story about sexual assault and the agency’s failure to protect people in its custody. Welsh alleged that 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 of Prisons ignored their information requests.

Reasoning

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 generally permits multiple plaintiffs to join one lawsuit when their claims arise from the same occurrence or series of occurrences and involve a common question of law or fact. Rule 21 allows a court to separate claims even without finding that joinder was improper when separation would prevent prejudice, expense, or delay.

The court found that each plaintiff had different circumstances, including location, incarceration conditions, classification within the Bureau of Prisons, alleged retaliation, responsible individuals, and information-request history. Each plaintiff would need to provide separate facts about the communications allegedly protected by the First Amendment, the alleged retaliation, and—if applicable—the exhaustion of administrative procedures for information requests. 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 practical problems involving a self-represented lawsuit with multiple incarcerated and non-incarcerated plaintiffs. Each plaintiff could represent only that person’s own interests, and every unrepresented plaintiff would have to personally sign court filings. Transfers, security restrictions, and limited communication could make it difficult to coordinate litigation, exchange documents, and meet deadlines. The court concluded that separate cases would be fairer and more efficient.

Disposition

The court severed all plaintiffs’ claims under Rule 21. Jeremy Pinson will proceed as the sole plaintiff in this case. 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, and to docket the complaint, this order, and any corresponding application to proceed without paying the filing fee in each new case. The new cases will proceed independently, although the court noted that related cases could later be considered or tried together if appropriate.

The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied the plaintiffs the ability to proceed without paying appellate fees for purposes of an appeal. The order was signed by Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain.