## Facts

- Twenty-seven individuals sued Lee County, Mississippi under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging unconstitutional strip searches at the Lee County Jail.
- The alleged strip searches occurred in separate incidents over roughly 2005 to 2007, not as a single mass search event.
- Each plaintiff sought damages, including emotional distress, tied to that plaintiff’s own strip-search incident.
- Lee County moved to sever the plaintiffs’ claims into separate actions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21, arguing the claims were improperly joined under Rule 20(a) because they did not arise from the same transaction or occurrence and would require individualized proof.
- Plaintiffs opposed severance, arguing severance would increase cost and inefficiency by multiplying proceedings.

## Issues

1. Whether the 27 plaintiffs’ § 1983 strip-search claims were properly joined under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a) as arising from the same transaction or occurrence (or series of transactions or occurrences) with common questions of law or fact.
2. Whether, applying Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 and relevant severance factors, the court should sever the claims into individual actions due to individualized factual and damages proof.

## Decision

- The court granted Lee County’s motion to sever under Rule 21.
- The court held the plaintiffs’ claims were not properly joined under Rule 20(a) because the alleged strip searches were separate events across a multi-year period and would require incident-by-incident proof.
- The court ordered the 27 claims severed into separate actions.

## Legal Principles

- Permissive joinder under Rule 20(a) requires (1) a right to relief arising from the same transaction or occurrence (or series) and (2) a common question of law or fact; failure of the transaction-or-occurrence requirement warrants severance.
- Under Rule 21, a court may sever claims on just terms, considering factors including: transactional relatedness, common questions, judicial economy, avoidance of prejudice, and whether different witnesses and documents are required.
- Similar legal theories or asserted policy-level wrongdoing are insufficient to satisfy Rule 20(a) where liability turns on materially different facts across separate events.
- Emotional-distress damages in § 1983 cases require proof of a specific, discernible injury to the plaintiff’s emotional state and evidence of the nature and extent of the harm, which commonly entails individualized testimony and supporting proof.

## Conclusion

The court severed 27 multi-plaintiff § 1983 strip-search claims because the alleged searches occurred in distinct incidents over time and would require individualized evidence on both liability and emotional-distress damages, making joint adjudication improper and potentially prejudicial despite some common legal questions.


Baughman v. Lee County, 554 F. Supp. 2d 652 (N.D. Miss. 2008)