Brown v. Department of Corrections

USDC SDNY

DOCUMENT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #:

Michael J. Lee, et al.,

Plaintiffs, 1:20-cv-08407 (GBD) (SDA)

-against- ORDER

Department of Corrections, et al.,

Defendants.

STEWART D. AARON, United States Magistrate Judge:

Michael J. Lee, who is currently detained at the Vernon C. Bain Center (“VCBC”), filed this

pro se Complaint alleging that jail officials are not providing him and other detainees with the

means to protect themselves from contracting COVID-19. (Compl., ECF No. 2.) They are asking

that officials improve the conditions and consider releasing them. The Complaint lists the names

of 49 other VCBC detainees, many of whom also signed the Complaint. Only Lee submitted a

request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without prepayment of fees, and a prisoner

authorization.

For the reasons set forth below, the claims of all the VCBC detainees whose names appear

in the Complaint are severed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21.

DISCUSSION

Generally, Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows multiple plaintiffs to join

in one action if (1) they assert any right to relief arising out of the same occurrence or series of

occurrences, and (2) if any question of law or fact in common to all plaintiffs will arise in the

action. See, e.g., Kalie v. Bank of Am. Corp., No. 12-CV-09192 (PAE), 2013 WL 4044951, at *3

(S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2013) (Courts “look to the logical relationship between the claims and determine

‘whether the essential facts of the various claims are so logically connected that considerations

of judicial economy and fairness dictate that all the issues be resolved in one lawsuit’” (quoting

United States v. Aquavella, 615 F.2d 12, 22 (2d Cir. 1979))).

Courts have the authority to deny joinder, or to order severance under Rule 21 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, even without a finding that joinder is improper, if joinder “will

not foster the objectives of the rule, but will result in prejudice, expense or delay.” Wright & Miller,

Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 1652 (3d ed.) (citations omitted); see Wyndham Assoc. v. Bintliff, 398 F.2d

614, 618 (2d Cir. 1968) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 “authorizes the severance of any claim, even without a

finding of improper joinder, where there are sufficient other reasons for ordering a severance”);

Ghaly v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 228 F. Supp. 2d 283, 292 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (noting that “district courts

have broad discretion to decide whether joinder is appropriate, even when the requirements of

Rule 20(a) have been met”) (citation omitted).

In determining whether to deny joinder or order severance of parties, courts consider the

requirements of Rule 20 and additional factors, “including (1) whether severance will serve

judicial economy; (2) whether prejudice to the parties would be caused by severance; and

(3)whether the claims involve different witnesses and evidence.” Kehr v. Yamaha Motor Corp.,

596 F. Supp. 2d 821, 826 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (considering motion to sever under Fed. R. Civ. P. 20 and

21); see also Laureano v. Goord, No. 06-CV-07845 (SHS) (RLE), 2007 WL 2826649, at *8 (SD.N.Y.

Aug. 31, 2007) (When considering severance, “courts should be guided by ‘considerations of

convenience, avoidance of prejudice to the parties, and efficiency’” (quoting Hecht v. City of New

York, 217 F.R.D. 148, 150 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)).

While there are similarities among their claims, each Plaintiff has his own underlying

health conditions, his own complaints regarding his detention, and his own unique circumstances

under which he might seek release. It is therefore not clear that their claims arise out of the same

occurrences or that questions of law or fact in common to all of them will arise. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

20.

Even if Plaintiffs in this action were properly joined, however, the Court finds that the

practical realities of managing this pro se multi-prisoner litigation militate against adjudicating

the plaintiffs’ claims in one action. As pro se litigants, Plaintiff may appear only on their own

behalf; none may appear as an attorney for the others. See United States v. Flaherty, 540 F.3d 89,

92 (2d Cir. 2008) (“[A]n individual who is not licensed as an attorney ‘may not appear on another

person’s behalf in the other’s cause’”) (citations omitted); Iannaccone v. Law, 142 F.3d 553, 558

(2d Cir. 1998) (“[B]ecause pro se means to appear for one’s self, a person may not appear on

another person’s behalf in the other’s cause”).

In addition, Rule 11(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that every pleading,

written motion, or other paper be signed by every party personally who is unrepresented. During

this action, each plaintiff would therefore be required to sign any motion or notice filed. But

because of the transitory nature of a pretrial detention facility such as Rikers Island, where an

inmate could be released or transferred at any time, and because of security concerns related to

inmate correspondence and face-to-face communications, Plaintiffs would have at best only a

very limited opportunity to discuss case strategy, share discovery, or even provide each other with

copies of the motions and notices that they file with the Court. Further, this can result in

piecemeal submissions, delays, and missed deadlines. See Perkins v. City of New York, No. 14-CV-

03779 (WHP), 2014 WL 5369428, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 20, 2014) (finding that multi-prisoner case

should be severed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 into individual actions based on unwieldy complaint,

security considerations, and plaintiffs’ likely inability to jointly litigate the case because they were

housed in different facilities or given limited opportunities to associate).

Based on these logistical issues, the Court concludes that allowing this case to proceed as

a multi-plaintiff case would not be fair to the Plaintiffs and would not achieve judicial economy.

Allowing each Plaintiff to proceed separately on the other hand, would facilitate the fair and

efficient disposition of the litigation.

The Court will therefore sever this action into individual cases. Michael J. Lee will proceed

as the sole plaintiff in this action. The other 49 Plaintiffs — Sonny Squire #4102000039; Jonathan

Martinez #3492001577; Curtis Clark #1412002253; Christopher DeJesus #1412002246; Dewayne

Boone #4412001752; Frank Pagan #3492001603; Jonathan Stevens #1412002119; Paul Reed

#1412001725; Josiah Pringle #1412001750; Carlos Bradley #3102000187; Hopeton Prendergast

#4411905343; Willie Smith #8951900921; Raymond Salgado #1412001188; Timothy Ward

#2412001588; Andre Fonseca #1412002023; Walter Ware #4411803480; Shamar Calloway

#4412001754; Keemal Cross #1411710237; Deryck Brown #2411800501; Hakiem Barrow #

8252000054; Devorn Parker #9002000003; Theodore Tucker #3492001370; James Jackson

#1411904748; Ricardo Gilcabrera #141200522; Emmanuel Rosario #3492001164; Manuel

Velasquez #3482001339; Willet Davidson #3491905326; Darius Batts #3491904664; James Clark

#1411709283; Cyril Sheppard #3492002011; Michael Miata #4412000457; Andre Boyd

#4411901712; Carl Henley #2411800815; Johnny Blanding #3491907402; Justin Manail

#441807062; Noel Fernandez #4411904753; Luis Molina #3001900157; Lester Pearson

#3002000233; Gill Graves #3002000211; Timothy Linares #5412000200; Frank Crawley

#2412001232; Matthew Karelefsky #1411903366; Rampersaud Persaud #4411904165;

Christopher Johnson #3492002320; Morris Tate #2412001025; Eon Struthers #5102000007;

Jonathan Weaver #1412001833; Edward Branch #3002000027; and Orlando Plummer

#4412001257 — will each be assigned a new case number.

A copy of the Complaint and this Order will be docketed in each new case. The new cases

will proceed independently from this point on, and Plaintiffs will not be regarded as co-plaintiffs,

except upon further order of the Court.1 Once the new cases are opened, the Court will direct

the other individuals to submit signed IFP applications, and prisoner authorizations. Any

individual who did not sign the Complaint will also be required to submit a declaration of his

intent to proceed as a plaintiff in his own case.

CONCLUSION

The Court severs the claims of all Plaintiffs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21.

Michael J. Lee will proceed as the sole plaintiff in this action.

The Clerk of Court is directed to open separate civil actions with new docket numbers for

the following plaintiffs: Sonny Squire #4102000039; Jonathan Martinez #3492001577; Curtis

Clark #1412002253; Christopher DeJesus #1412002246; Dewayne Boone #4412001752; Frank

Pagan #3492001603; Jonathan Stevens #1412002119; Paul Reed #1412001725; Josiah Pringle

#1412001750; Carlos Bradley #3102000187; Hopeton Prendergast #4411905343; Willie Smith

#8951900921; Raymond Salgado #1412001188; Timothy Ward #2412001588; Andre Fonseca

1 The severance of Plaintiffs’ claims into individual cases does not mean that their claims cannot be

considered or tried together. If appropriate, the Court can deem the cases related or consolidate them.

See Hagan, 570 F.3d at 165 n.11.

#1412002023; Walter Ware #4411803480; Shamar Calloway #4412001754; Keemal Cross

#1411710237; Deryck Brown #2411800501; Hakiem Barrow # 8252000054; Devorn Parker

#9002000003; Theodore Tucker #3492001370; James Jackson #1411904748; Ricardo Gilcabrera

#141200522; Emmanuel Rosario #3492001164; Manuel Velasquez #3482001339; Willet

Davidson #3491905326; Darius Batts #3491904664; James Clark #1411709283; Cyril Sheppard

#3492002011; Michael Miata #4412000457; Andre Boyd #4411901712; Carl Henley

#2411800815; Johnny Blanding #3491907402; Justin Manail #441807062; Noel Fernandez

#4411904753; Luis Molina #3001900157; Lester Pearson #3002000233; Gill Graves

#3002000211; Timothy Linares #5412000200; Frank Crawley #2412001232; Matthew Karelefsky

#1411903366; Rampersaud Persaud #4411904165; Christopher Johnson #3492002320; Morris

Tate #2412001025; Eon Struthers #5102000007; Jonathan Weaver #1412001833; Edward Branch

#3002000027; and Orlando Plummer #4412001257. A copy of the Complaint (ECF No. 2) and this

Order should be docketed in each new case.

The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to all the plaintiffs at the

following address: Vernon C. Bain Center, 1 Halleck Street, Bronx, New York, 10474, and note

service on the docket.

SO ORDERED.

DATED: New York, New York

November 9, 2020

irr a. Carr

STEWART D. AARON

United States Magistrate Judge