Brown v. Otis Bantum Correctional Facility

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

BRANDON L. GRIFFITH, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

24-CV-8318 (LTS)

-against-

ORDER TO SEVER AND

OPEN NEW CIVIL ACTIONS

OTIS BANTUM CORRECTIONAL CENTER, et al.,

Defendants.

LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge:

Brandon L. Griffith (“Griffith”), who currently is detained at the Otis Bantum

Correctional Facility (“OBCC”), filed this pro se complaint alleging that OBCC correctional

staff are violating his and 62 other OBCC detainees’ constitutional rights. The complaint lists the

names of 62 other OBCC detainees, all of whom also signed the complaint. Griffith identifies

himself as the “lead plaintiff.” Only Griffith 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 Court directs the Clerk of Court to (1) sever the

claims, under Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, brought by each plaintiff whose

name appears in the complaint; and (2) open a new civil action for each plaintiff other than

Griffith, who will now be the sole plaintiff in this case.

DISCUSSION

Under Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, multiple plaintiffs may 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-9192 (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))).

Under Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, courts have the authority to sever

claims, even without a finding that joinder of such claims was improper. Generally, 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), a court may sever a claim, 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 order severance of claims, 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-7845 (SHS) (RLE), 2007 WL 2826649, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 31,

2007) (noting that 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)).

The Court finds that, in the interests of judicial economy, the claims brought by plaintiffs

should be severed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 because the practical realities of managing this pro se

multi-prisoner litigation militate against adjudicating the plaintiffs’ claims in one action.

First, as pro se litigants, plaintiffs 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”). Although Griffith describes himself as the “lead plaintiff,” he

cannot represent the interests of the 62 other plaintiffs.

Second, 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 will 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 one or more of the

plaintiffs could be released or transferred at any time, at least some of the plaintiffs likely will be

unable to sign future documents.

Finally, because of security concerns related to correspondence and face-to-face

communications between detained individuals, plaintiffs will 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. These circumstances will result in piecemeal

submissions, delays, and missed deadlines. See Perkins v. City of New York, No. 14-CV-3779

(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).

For these reasons, 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 will facilitate the fair and efficient disposition of

the litigation.

The Court therefore severs this action into individual cases. Brandon Griffith will proceed

as the sole plaintiff in this action. The other 62 plaintiffs, listed below, will each be assigned a

new case number. A copy of the complaint (ECF No. 1) 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. Once the new cases are opened,

the Court will direct the other individuals to submit signed IFP applications, and prisoner

authorizations.

This order offers no opinion on whether these claims may be treated as related under Rule

13 of the Division of Business Among District Judges or be consolidated under Rule 42 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.1

The following two pages include a list of the 62 other plaintiffs.

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 generally Hagan v. Rogers, 570 F.3d 146, 161 (3d Cir. 2009) (“The

difference between joinder under Rule 20 and consolidation under Rule 42(a) is not a distinction

without a difference. Under the latter rule, before there is a consolidation there are, by definition,

separate actions, for each of which a filing fee is paid and each of which must stand on its own

merit.”).

1. Terrell Lewis #1412003074

2. Roman Martinez #2412101999

3. Raimy Corraro #2412300662

4. Ryan Ormsby #141240225

5. Terrell Winters #1411903780

6. Michael Bennett #1412003663

7. Norberto Lee #3492402444

8. Abdullah Abubala #441230411

9. Shakeem Callaghan #1412000585

10. Joshua Rivera #2102300250

11. Hussein Adam #5412300684

12. Jaheim James # 2912901291

13. Kevin Oytega #44112401060

14. Danny Delacruz #4412400974

15. Kevin Feliz #2412302288

16. Danny Batson #1412303855

17. Trayvon Wilson #1412301045

18. Carlos Rivera #2412201426

19. Yawillis Rodriguez #2412302418

20. Frank Soto #2412302208

21. Jose Castri #349304180

22. Ceda Sanchez #3492304180

23. Tineo Gioliver #1412302002

24. Alex Davis #3602300073

25. Paul Johnson #8752200028

26. Rashawn Brown #1412002641

27. Damien Deleon #8252301430

28. Arturo Cuevas #4412300798

29. Luis Pacheco #3602300062

30. Jerson Acosta #3102200500

31. Lewis Turnball #2412302466

32. Anthony Alimonte #3102400211

33. Dwayne M. Riley Jr. #1412300261

34. Ivan Cabreja #4412303986

35. Jensi Alfonso #1412400367

36. Josue Vasquez #2412301015

37. Alfred Lopez #2412301781

38. Emmanuel Lovett #1412402343

39. Roy Richards #1412402164

40. Shamel Williams #4102300116

41. Juan Lovelady #3492401080

42. Jason Williams #3492302793

43. Diego Sabala #2412202588

44. Tykenda Richardson #1412402492

45. David Chauntique #1412000589

46. Alex Rodriguez #3492400094

47. Christopher Torres #1412402480

48. Damon McGriff #3492403230

49. Doriano Gigante #1412402718

50. Jose R. Vasquez #2412400853

51. Adrian Franklin #241240114

52. Jerald Bethen #4412002046

53. Amaury Toro #2412401867

54. Daniel Perez #4412402579

55. John Markou #4412402785

56. Andrew Pridgem #4412300947

57. Damian Suarez #8252400904

58. Jeffrey Garcia #4412300252

59. Justin Rivera #3492703197

60. Hason Rink #1412001796

61. James Bradley #54122400717

62. Khalif Abdullah #3492401626

CONCLUSION

The Court severs the claims of all plaintiffs under Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. Brandon L. Griffith

will proceed as the sole plaintiff in this action.

The Clerk of Court is directed to open a separate civil action with a new docket number

for each of the 62 plaintiffs listed on pages five and six of this order. A copy of the complaint

(ECF No. 1) and this order shall be docketed in each new case.

The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to each of the plaintiffs at the

following address: Otis Bantum Correctional Facility, 1600 Hazen Street, East Elmhurst, New

York, 11370.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 12, 2024

New York, New York

/s/ Laura Taylor Swain

LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN

Chief United States District Judge