Copelin v. Demarco

Filing 4

ORDER: The Court hereby ORDERS that the fifty-nine (59) above-captioned actions be consolidated for all purposes, to proceed under the lead case 11cv2602. The Clerk of the Court is directed to (i) consolidate these actions, and (ii) mark all of the m ember cases closed. All future filings are to be docketed in the lead case, 11cv2602. Shearman & Sterling LLPs appointment as pro bono counsel to the Plaintiffs in 11cv2602 is extended to all Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action. Shearman & Sterling LLP is directed to file a Consolidated Amended Complaint on behalf of the Consolidated Plaintiffs by March 5, 2012. Once filed, the Consolidated Amended Complaint will supercede each of the individual complaints, rendering them of no legal effect, a nd will be the operative complaint upon which the Consolidated Action will proceed. Upon receipt of the Consolidated Amended Complaint, the Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate all pending in forma pauperis motions filed on the above cases. An y future actions commenced pro se by any of the Consolidated Plaintiffs shall be randomly assigned or, if one of the Consolidated Plaintiffs has previously filed a pro se complaint unrelated to the Consolidated Action, his action shall be automatical ly assigned to the district judge who presided over the earlier-filed action. When a pro se action which relates to the subject matter of the Consolidated Action is hereafter filed in the Court, the Clerk of the Court shall: (1) Assign each subsequen tly filed action a new case number to proceed before the undersigned and Mag. Judge Gary R. Brown; (2) Docket this Order in each Newly-Filed Action; (3) Consolidate each Newly-Filed Action with 11cv2602 and make an appropriate entry on the Consolidat ed Actions docket so indicating; (4) Mail a copy of the Complaint in each Newly-Filed Action to counsel for the Consolidated Plaintiffs at Lynch v. DeMarco Case Team; (5) Mail a copy of this Order and a copy of the Consolidated Amended Complaint to t he Plaintiff in the Newly-Filed Action; and (6) Administratively close each Newly-Filed Action. Any claims raised in a Newly-Filed Action that are not raised in the Consolidated Amended Complaint shall be severed. Any Plaintiff with severed claims ma y proceed with those severed claims after the resolution of the Consolidated Action by moving to have their Newly-Filed Actions reopened within 30 days of the entry of judgment in the Consolidated Action. Any pending application for in forma pauperis status and for the appointment of counsel filed in Newly-Filed Actions commenced after the filing of the Consolidated Amended Complaint shall be denied without prejudice as moot with leave to renew if and when the cases are reopened. The Clerk of th e Court is directed to terminate such motions as moot when the Newly-Filed cases are administratively closed. Any Plaintiff who does not wish to proceed as part of the Consolidated Action must so indicate in a letter to the Court within 30 days of re ceiving a copy of this Order. Upon receipt of such a letter, the Court will direct the Clerk of Court to sever that Plaintiffs Complaint from the Consolidated Amended Complaint and reopen and reinstate his individual action. Counsel for Plaintiffs shall mail a copy of this Order to each of the Consolidated Plaintiffs. So Ordered by Judge Joanna Seybert on 1/23/12. C/M by First Class Mail to pro se plaintiff. (Valle, Christine)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------x
RICKY LYNCH, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

ORDER
11-CV-2602(JS)(GRB)

-againstVINCENT F. DeMARCO, et al.,
Defendants.
----------------------------------x
HASHEEN McLAURIN,
Plaintiff,

11-CV-3711(JS)(GRB)

-againstVINCENT F. DeMARCO, et al.,
Defendants.
----------------------------------x
ANDREW WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,

11-CV-3712(JS)(GRB)

-againstVINCENT F. DeMARCO, et al.,
Defendants.
----------------------------------x
WESLEY JONES,
Plaintiff,

11-CV-3713(JS)(GRB)

-againstVINCENT F. DeMARCO, et al.,
Defendants.
----------------------------------x
SHATI ROY,
Plaintiff,
-againstVINCENT F. DeMARCO, et al.,
----------------------------------x

11-CV-3714(JS)(GRB)

----------------------------------x
QUINTELLE HARDY,
Plaintiff,

11-CV-3716 (JS)(GRB)

-againstVINCENT F. DeMARCO, et al.,
Defendants.
----------------------------------x
MARK PHIPPS,
Plaintiff,

11-CV-3717 (JS)(GRB)

-againstVINCENT F. DeMARCO, et al.,
Defendants.
----------------------------------x
DASHAUN SIMS,
Plaintiff,

11-CV-3718 (JS)(GRB)

-againstVINCENT F. DeMARCO, et al.,
Defendants.
----------------------------------x
WALTER ANDERSON,
Plaintiff,

11-CV-3822 (JS)(GRB)

-againstVINCENT F. DeMARCO, et al.,
Defendants.
----------------------------------x
JULIUS A. STEPHENS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

11-CV-4225 (JS)(GRB)

-againstSUFFOLK COUNTY CORRECTIONAL
CENTER, et al.,
Defendants.
----------------------------------x
2

----------------------------------x
KENNETH JOSEPH WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,

11-CV-4428 (JS)(GRB)

-againstSUFFOLK COUNTY CORRECTIONAL
CENTER, et al.,
Defendants.
----------------------------------x
DANIEL C. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,

11-CV-4483 (JS)(GRB)

-againstVINCENT F. DeMARCO, et al.,
Defendants.
----------------------------------x
JAMES PERNELL,
Plaintiff,

11-CV-4562 (JS)(GRB)

-againstVINCENT F. DeMARCO,
Defendant.
----------------------------------x
PHILLIP LEVAR HOLLMAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

11-CV-4705 (JS)(GRB)

-againstSUFFOLK COUNTY CORRECTIONAL
CENTER, et al.,
Defendants.
----------------------------------x
VERNON ODOM,
Plaintiff,

11-CV-4940 (JS)(GRB)

-againstVINCENT F. DeMARCO, et al.,
Defendants.
----------------------------------x
3

----------------------------------x
JAMES McGILL, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

11-CV-4946 (JS)(GRB)

-againstVINCENT F. DeMARCO,
Defendant.
-----------------------------------x
JAMIE MATTHEWS,
Plaintiff,

11-CV-5060 (JS)(GRB)

-againstSUFFOLK COUNTY CORRECTIONAL
CENTER, et al.,
Defendants.
----------------------------------x
CLYDE LOFTON,
Plaintiff,

11-CV-5145 (JS)(GRB)

-againstVINCENT F. DeMARCO,
Defendant.
----------------------------------x
FRANK CAIRO, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

11-CV-5176 (JS)(GRB)

-againstVINCENT F. DeMARCO,
Defendant.
----------------------------------x
MARVIN CANALES, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

11-CV-5177 (JS)(GRB)

-againstVINCENT F. DeMARCO,
Defendant.
----------------------------------x
4

----------------------------------x
DWAYNE DARNELL STEWART,
Plaintiff,

11-CV-5236 (JS)(GRB)

-againstSUFFOLK COUNTY CORRECTIONAL
CENTER, et al.,
Defendants.
----------------------------------x
RONALD GRANT,
Plaintiff,

11-CV-5460 (JS)(GRB)

-againstVINCENT F. DeMARCO,
Defendant.
----------------------------------x
MANUEL S. ROSALES,
Plaintiff,

11-CV-5461 (JS)(GRB)

-againstVINCENT F. DeMARCO,
Defendant.
----------------------------------x
ELIHUE C. CRUMP,
Plaintiff,

11-CV-5566 (JS)(GRB)

-againstVINCENT F. DeMARCO, et al.,
Defendants.
----------------------------------x
DENNIS CLYDE THOMASON,
Plaintiff,

11-CV-5569 (JS)(GRB)

-againstSUFFOLK COUNTY CORRECTIONAL
CENTER,
Defendant.
----------------------------------x

5

----------------------------------x
JOHN MAZZULLO,
Plaintiff,

11-CV-5576 (JS)(GRB)

-againstVINCENT F. DeMARCO,
Defendant.
----------------------------------x
GERARD HATCH,
Plaintiff,

11-CV-5581 (JS)(GRB)

-againstVINCENT F. DeMARCO,
Defendant.
----------------------------------x
JARRELL WALKER,
Plaintiff,

11-CV-5594 (JS)(GRB)

-againstVINCENT F. DeMARCO,
Defendant.
----------------------------------x
MARK A. HARRIS,
Plaintiff,

11-CV-5595 (JS)(GRB)

-againstVINCENT F. DeMARCO,
Defendant.
----------------------------------x
NEHEMIAH BELLAMY,
Plaintiff,

11-CV-5597 (JS)(GRB)

-againstVINCENT F. DeMARCO,
Defendant.
----------------------------------x
6

----------------------------------x
HAROLD OWENS, JR.,
Plaintiff,

11-CV-5598 (JS)(GRB)

-againstVINCENT F. DeMARCO,
Defendant.
----------------------------------x
EDWARD L. EVANS,
Plaintiff,

11-CV-5666 (JS)(GRB)

-againstVINCENT F. DeMARCO,
Defendant.
----------------------------------x
JOSEPH HASSLER,
Plaintiff,

11-CV-5807 (JS)(GRB)

-againstVINCENT F. DeMARCO,
Defendant.
----------------------------------x
CHRISTOPHER CATALANO,
Plaintiff,

11-CV-5808 (JS)(GRB)

-againstVINCENT F. DeMARCO,
Defendant.
----------------------------------x
HAROLD JONES,
Plaintiff,

11-CV-5947 (JS)(GRB)

-againstVINCENT F. DeMARCO,
Defendant.
----------------------------------x
7

----------------------------------x
JAMES T. JOHNSEN,
Plaintiff,

11-CV-5979 (JS)(GRB)

-againstVINCENT F. DeMARCO,
Defendant.
----------------------------------x
PAUL THOMAS ALVER,
Plaintiff,

11-CV-6065 (JS)(GRB)

-againstVINCENT F. DeMARCO,
Defendant.
----------------------------------x
RICHARD JONES,
Plaintiff,

11-CV-6067 (JS)(GRB)

-againstYAPHANK CORRECTIONAL FACILITY,
et al.,
Defendants.
----------------------------------x
FREDERICK GRACE,
Plaintiff,

11-CV-6068 (JS)(GRB)

-againstVINCENT F. DeMARCO,
Defendant.
----------------------------------x
MATTHAN DAULEY,
Plaintiff,

11-CV-6078 (JS)(GRB)

-againstVINCENT F. DeMARCO,
Defendant.
----------------------------------x
8

----------------------------------x
ROBERT STEWART, JR.,
Plaintiff,

11-CV-6116 (JS)(GRB)

-againstVINCENT F. DeMARCO,
Defendant.
----------------------------------x
MICHAEL NIEVES,
Plaintiff,

11-CV-6117 (JS)(GRB)

-againstVINCENT F. DeMARCO, et al.,
Defendants.
----------------------------------x
NOE MARTINEZ,
Plaintiff,

11-CV-6119 (JS)(GRB)

-againstVINCENT F. DeMARCO,
Defendant.
----------------------------------x
TOBIAS BROWN,
Plaintiff,

11-CV-6121 (JS)(GRB)

-againstVINCENT F. DeMARCO,
Defendant.
----------------------------------x
ROBERT SAVOIA,
Plaintiff,

11-CV-6122 (JS)(GRB)

-againstVINCENT F. DeMARCO,
Defendant.
----------------------------------x
9

----------------------------------x
EDWARD FRIEND,
Plaintiff,

11-CV-6124 (JS)(GRB)

-againstVINCENT F. DeMARCO,
Defendant.
----------------------------------x
DAVID RYAN CALLENDER,
Plaintiff,

11-CV-6125 (JS)(GRB)

-againstVINCENT F. DeMARCO,
Defendant.
----------------------------------x
DARYL COHEN,
Plaintiff,

11-CV-6198 (JS)(GRB)

-againstVINCENT F. DeMARCO,
Defendant.
----------------------------------x
PAUL D. CHAMPLIN,
Plaintiff,

11-CV-6199 (JS)(GRB)

-againstVINCENT F. DeMARCO, et al.,
Defendants.
----------------------------------x
LUIS F. GOMEZ,
Plaintiff,

11-CV-6281 (JS)(GRB)

-againstVINCENT F. DeMARCO,
Defendant.
----------------------------------x

10

----------------------------------x
RAMON RUIZ,
Plaintiff,

11-CV-6282 (JS)(GRB)

-againstVINCENT F. DeMARCO,
Defendant.
----------------------------------x
LUIS ZHICAY,
Plaintiff,

11-CV-6283 (JS)(GRB)

-againstVINCENT F. DeMARCO,
Defendant.
----------------------------------x
LAZARO BAUTISTA,
Plaintiff,

11-CV-6285 (JS)(GRB)

-againstVINCENT F. DeMARCO,
Defendant.
----------------------------------x
EFRAIN DELCID,
Plaintiff,

11-CV-6287 (JS)(GRB)

-againstVINCENT F. DeMARCO,
Defendant.
----------------------------------x
CECILIO FERNANDEZ,
Plaintiff,

11-CV-6288 (JS)(GRB)

-againstVINCENT F. DeMARCO,
Defendant.
----------------------------------x
11

----------------------------------x
ANTHONY JEROME WADE,
Plaintiff,

11-CV-6389 (JS)(GRB)

-againstVINCENT F. DeMARCO,
Defendant.
----------------------------------x
CHARLES RAYMOND McCLENDON,
Plaintiff,

12-CV-0166(JS)(GRB)

-againstVINCENT F. DeMARCO,
Defendant.
----------------------------------x
JOHN MARTIN,
Plaintiff,

12-CV-0254(JS)(GRB)

-againstVINCENT F. DeMARCO,
Defendant.
----------------------------------x
MARSHALL BLIZZARD,
Plaintiff,

12-CV-0256(JS)(GRB)

-againstVINCENT F. DeMARCO,
Defendant.
----------------------------------x
APPEARANCES
For Plaintiffs:
Daniel Hector Rees LaGuardia, Esq.
Edward Garth Timlin, Esq.
Melissa Jane Godwin, Esq.
Shearman & Sterling
599 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022
For Defendants:

Arlene S. Zwilling, Esq.
Office of the Suffolk County Attorney
H. Lee Dennison Building, Fifth Floor
100 Veterans Memorial Highway
12

P.O. Box 6100
Hauppauge, NY 11788
SEYBERT, District Judge:
Pending before the Court are Defendants’ letter motions
to consolidate Lynch v. DeMarco, 11-CV-2602 with the following
cases: McLaurin v. DeMarco, 11-CV-3711, Williams v. DeMarco, 113712, Jones v. DeMarco, 11-CV-3713, Roy v. DeMarco, 11-CV-3714,
Hardy v. DeMarco, 11-CV-3716, Phipps v. DeMarco, 11-CV-3717, and
Sims v. DeMarco, 11-CV-3718.

(Case No. 11-CV-2602, Docket Entry

234; Case No. 11-CV-3713, Docket Entry 11; Case No. 11-CV-3717,
Docket Entry 12.)

For the following reasons, Defendants’ motions

to consolidate are GRANTED, and the Court hereby ORDERS that all of
the above-captioned cases be consolidated.
DISCUSSION
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) provides that “[i]f
actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact,
the court may . . . (2) consolidate the actions; or (3) issue any
other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.”
42(a).

FED . R. CIV . P.

In deciding whether to consolidate cases, trial courts are

vested with “broad discretion,” Johnson v. Celotex Corp., 899 F.2d
1281, 1284 (2d Cir. 1990), and may consolidate actions under Rule
42(a) sua sponte, Devlin v. Transp. Commc'n Int'l Union, 175 F.3d
121, 130 (2d Cir. 1999).

Rule 42 should be prudently employed “to

expedite trial and eliminate unnecessary repetition and confusion.”
Devlin, 175 F.3d at 130.

In exercising its discretion, the trial

court must weigh the efficiency gains against the risk of prejudice
to the parties and possible confusion of the issues.
13

Johnson, 899

F.2d at 1285.
In each of the Complaints in the fifty-nine (59) abovecaptioned actions,1 the Plaintiffs allege, inter alia: (i) the
existence of unhealthy, unsanitary, and hazardous conditions at the
Suffolk

County

Correctional

Facility

(“SCCF”),

including

the

presence of black mold, fungus, soap scum, and rust in the shower
areas of the SCCF, drainage problems causing back-ups of sewage and
rusty water, and ventilation problems; (ii) injuries resulting from
these conditions including headaches, breathing problems, skin
rashes, itching, swelling, and infections; and (iii) that their
grievances and/or complaints about these conditions were ignored.
Given that (i) each of the fifty-nine Complaints asserts
similar unsanitary and hazardous conditions at SCCF, (ii) with the
exception of the Plaintiffs in 11-CV-2602, all Plaintiffs are
proceeding pro se, and (iii) most, if not all, Plaintiffs are
currently incarcerated, the Court finds that consolidation of the
fifty-nine pending actions would be in the interests of judicial
economy and efficiency and would minimize the expense and burden on
all of the parties, who would otherwise be required to prosecute
and defend each lawsuit individually.

These benefits far outweigh

the minimal, if any, risk of prejudice or confusion to the parties.

1

The Court notes that the following cases were previously
consolidated with Anderson v. DeMarco, 11-CV-3822, by Judge
Sandra J. Feuerstein and administratively closed: Abt v. DeMarco,
11-CV-4195; Burwell v. DeMarco, 11-CV-4564; Porter v. DeMarco,
11-CV-4565; Defreitas v. DeMarco, 11-CV-4704; and Williams v.
DeMarco, 11-CV-4841.
14

CONCLUSION
For

the

foregoing

reasons,

Defendants’

motions

to

consolidate are GRANTED, and it is hereby:
ORDERED that the fifty-nine (59) above-captioned actions
be consolidated for all purposes, to proceed under the lead case,
11-CV-2602 (hereinafter, the “Consolidated Action”).

Accordingly,

the Clerk of the Court is directed to (i) consolidate these
actions, and (ii) mark all of the member cases (i.e., all of the
cases consolidated under 11-CV-2602) closed.

All future filings

are to be docketed in the lead case, 11-CV-2602.

It is further

ORDERED that Shearman & Sterling LLP’s appointment as pro
bono counsel to the Plaintiffs in 11-CV-2602 is extended to all
Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action (“Consolidated Plaintiffs”)2;
and it is further
ORDERED that Shearman & Sterling LLP file a Consolidated
Amended Complaint on behalf of the Consolidated Plaintiffs by March
5, 2012.

Once filed, the Consolidated Amended Complaint will

supercede each of the individual complaints, rendering them of no
legal effect, see Arce v. Walker, 139 F.3d 329, 332 n.4 (2d Cir.
1998),

2

and

will

be

the

operative

complaint

Counsel’s mailing address is:
Lynch v. DeMarco Case Team
c/o Shearman & Sterling LLP
599 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022

Counsel’s telephone number is: [phone].
15

upon

which

the

Consolidated Action will proceed.3

It is further

ORDERED that when a pro se action which relates to the
subject matter of the Consolidated Action is hereafter filed in
this Court, the Clerk of the Court shall:
1.

Assign each subsequently filed action a new case number
(“Newly-Filed Action”) to proceed before the undersigned
and Magistrate Judge Gary R. Brown;4

2.

Docket this Order in each Newly-Filed Action;

3.

Consolidate each Newly-Filed Action with the Consolidated
Action and make an appropriate entry on the Consolidated
Action’s docket so indicating;

4.

Mail a copy of the Complaint in each Newly-Filed Action
to counsel for the Consolidated Plaintiffs at Lynch v.
DeMarco Case Team, c/o Shearman & Sterling LLP, 599
Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10022;

5.

Mail a copy of this Order (and, for any Newly-Filed
Action commenced after the Consolidated Amended Complaint
is filed, a copy of the Consolidated Amended Complaint)
to the Plaintiff in the Newly-Filed Action;

6.

Administratively close each Newly-Filed Action.

It is further

3

The Court notes that many of the above-captioned cases
have pending in forma pauperis applications. Upon receipt of the
Consolidated Amended Complaint, the Clerk of the Court is
directed to terminate all such motions.
4

The Court notes that these matters are deemed “related”
only to the extent that they relate to the subject matter of the
Consolidated Action. Any future civil action commenced pro se by
any of the Consolidated Plaintiffs shall not be deemed “related”
to the Consolidated Action or any of the Newly-Filed Actions
pursuant to Local Civil Rule 50.3.1(e)(2) and thus automatically
assigned to the undersigned. Rather, any future actions
commenced pro se by any of the Consolidated Plaintiffs shall be
randomly assigned or, if one of the Consolidated Plaintiffs has
previously filed a pro se complaint unrelated to the Consolidated
Action, his action shall be automatically assigned to the
district judge who presided over the earlier-filed action.
16

ORDERED that any claims raised in a Newly-Filed Action
that are not raised in the Consolidated Amended Complaint shall be
severed.5

This only applies to Newly-Filed Actions that are

commenced after the Consolidated Amended Complaint is filed.

Any

Plaintiff with severed claims may proceed with those severed claims
after the resolution of the Consolidated Action by moving to have
their Newly-Filed Actions reopened within thirty (30) days of the
entry of judgment in the Consolidated Action.
ORDERED

that

any

pending

It is further

applications

for

in

forma

pauperis status and for the appointment of counsel filed in NewlyFiled Actions commenced after the filing of the Consolidated
Amended Complaint shall be denied without prejudice as moot with
leave to renew if and when the cases are reopened.

The Clerk of

the Court is directed to terminate such motions as moot when the
Newly-Filed cases are administratively closed.

It is further

ORDERED that any Plaintiff–-in any of the above-captioned
actions or in a Newly-Filed Action--who does not wish to proceed as
part of the Consolidated Action must so indicate in a letter to the
Court within thirty (30) days of receiving a copy of this Order.
Upon receipt of such a letter, the Court will direct the Clerk of

5

This only applies to Newly-Filed Actions that are
commenced after the filing of the Consolidated Amended Complaint.
As the Court previously explained, the Consolidated Amended
Complaint will supercede each of the individual complaints in the
Consolidated Action, whether they were filed before or after the
date of this Order. See Arce v. Walker, 139 F.3d 329, 332 n.4
(2d Cir. 1998). Thus, any claims asserted in individual
complaints filed before the Consolidated Amended Complaint that
are not incorporated into the Consolidated Amended Complaint will
be deemed voluntarily withdrawn.
17

the Court to sever that Plaintiff’s Complaint from the Consolidated
Amended Complaint and reopen and reinstate his individual action.
It is further
ORDERED that counsel for Plaintiffs mail a copy of this
Order to each of the Consolidated Plaintiffs.

SO ORDERED.
/s/ JOANNA SEYBERT
Joanna Seybert, U.S.D.J.
Dated:

January 23, 2012
Central Islip, NY

18