|
ADMINISTRATIVE SEGREGATION
Giano v. Kelly, 2000 WL 876855 (W.D.N.Y. 2000).
This case held that due process requires prison officials to conduct periodic and meaningful reviews of the basis for an inmate’s confinement in Administrative Segregation.
Bryant v. Goord, et al. , 01-CV-00480 (W.D.N.Y) (Skretny, J.)
This Section 1983 challenged an inmates placement, and continued confinement over a period of three years, in Administration Segregation. Among other things, the complaint alleged that Title 7 of the New York Code, Rules and Regulations 301.4 violated the 5th and 14th Amendments in that it failed to provide that if the reason for Administrative Segregation of an inmate changes, the inmate should be informed of the new reason and given an opportunity to respond. In 2007, the case settled with a monetary damage award for the plaintiff and expungement of his 1998 administrative segregation hearing from his records.
AIDS
Doe v. Coughlin, 697 F.Supp.1234 (N.D.N.Y. 1988)
In this case we obtained a preliminary injunction, later made permanent, prohibiting the Department of Correctional Services from housing inmates with AIDS in a separate, identifiable dormitory, while expecting these inmates to mingle with other inmates in other areas of the prison. This case clearly established the right to privacy for inmates with AIDS.
In the Matter of V. v. State of New York (New York State Court of Claims)
This case held that inmates in New York State Correctional Facilities(as well as patients generally) have a claim for damages pursuant to Article 27-F of the Public Health Law for unauthorized access to medical records and disclosure of their affliction with HIV and/or AIDS.
Zoe, et al. v. Coughlin, Griefinger and Moore (United States District Court, Northern District of New York)
This case challenged the blanket exclusion by DOCS of prisoners with HIV/AIDS from the Family Reunion Program. Shortly after the case was filed, PLS entered into settlement negotiations resulting in a change of this policy to permit such visits between such prisoners and their parents and siblings.
top
CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT
In the Matter of Barnes v. McGinnis, Morse, and Alves, Index No. 2002-1030, (Chemung Co. Sup. Ct.) (Castellino, J.)
This Article 78, filed in 2002, challenged, inter alia, the imposition of a disciplinary (loaf) diet as an unconstitutional punishment in a prison disciplinary hearing. The court entered a preliminary injunction against the respondents, prohibiting them from imposing the diet under the circumstances of the case. The uncontested evidence showed that the petitioner had been on the diet for 3 straight months, had not eaten the loaf, and had consequently suffered substantial weight loss. During the course of the litigation respondents continued to be enjoined from imposing the diet on Mr. Barnes. The case was dismissed as moot after Mr. Barnes was released from custody on January 9, 2005. However, as a result of this litigation, Mr. Barnes was protected from implementation of the harsh and unconstitutional punishment of the restricted diet for almost three years.
Blackman, et al. v. Coughlin, et al. (United States District Court, Southern District of New York)
This lawsuit challenged the conditions of confinement at the Bayview Correctional Facility - a women's prison located in New York City. The Stipulation of Settlement required the Department of Correctional Services to employ a full-time doctor at the prison, provide weekly access of inmates to a licensed gynecologist, establish a Peer Review Chart Audit System for the purpose of reviewing inmates' medical charts bi-annually, implement a log and calendar system to insure that follow-up medical appointments were made, and review the sick call procedure to provide daily access for inmates to sick call. Additionally, as a result of the litigation, the facility underwent extensive renovation including rewiring of the electrical system, installation of smoke alarms, construction of a "yard" on the roof of the prison, reconstruction of kitchen, dining room, food and garbage storage, and visitation areas. Changes in the food storage system resulting from the litigation will insure that food stored beyond the safety expiration date is not fed to inmates. As a result of this settlement, the safety, sanitary, and medical conditions of approximately 300 women have been significantly improved.
 Charnock v. Peters (United States District Court, Northern District of New York)
This class action sought to enforce the right of inmates to be free from continued exposure to asbestos and to prevent the Watertown Correctional Facility from using inmate labor without protective uniforms to remove asbestos. The action was resolved when the Department of Correctional Services produced an adequate asbestos removal plan. Approximately 900 inmates were affected by this determination.
Mr. Charnock, who suffers from a panic disorder, had been taking the anti-psychotic medication Xanax, as well as other medications, for over 18 months. He was transferred to Marcy Correctional Facility on a Friday and upon arrival was told that the medications he had been taking were not available at the pharmacy but would be available the next Monday. On Monday he was seen by defendant Padman, a doctor, who ordered that his medications be discontinued. The abrupt discontinuance of the medication caused Mr. Charnock to decompensate and ultimately, he attempted to commit suicide. Additionally, because he was suffering severe anxiety attacks during the withdrawal of the medication, he engaged in bizarre behavior which resulted in him being charged with misbehavior and placed in solitary confinement.
Two actions were filed and settled: Charnock v. State, brought in the Court of Claims alleges medical malpractice and a federal civil rights action under Section 1983. Charnock v. Padman was also filed alleging deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, the constitutional standard.
The settlements resulted in compensatory damages for Mr. Charnock and an agreement to amend DOCS' Directive #4918 to require that prior to transferring an inmate who is receiving psychiatric medications, the sending facility must contact the receiving facility and determine if that facility has the prescribed medication currently in stock. In the event that the receiving facility does not have the prescribed medication currently in stock, the sending facility shall transfer, together with the inmate, a sufficient supply of the prescribed medication to ensure that the inmate being transferred continues to receive his or her prescribed medication without interruption.
Eng, et al. v. Coughlin, et al. sub nom. Eng v. Smith (United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit)
This case which challenged many conditions of confinement in the Special Housing Unit at the Attica Correctional Facility resulted in a series of settlement agreements setting substantive standards for the provision of medical and mental health care, food, exercise, sanitation, ventilation, protection from excessive use of force, and religious exercise to inmates in the unit.
* As a consequence of the settlement of the medical care segment of the lawsuit, inmates obtained an improved emergency care system, equipment and staff trained in Advanced Cardiac Life Support, improvements in the way medical rounds are conducted and in the way initial medical "exams" are conducted on the unit, an improved method of keeping patients' records, better tracking of chronic cases, and a more effective system for call-outs to outside facilities and other follow-up care.
* In settlement of inmates' claims that they were deprived of mental health care while in the Special Housing Unit at Attica, the court held that given the likelihood that some individuals would decompensate mentally in the environment of the unit, it was essential that a basic system for mental health screening and follow-up be provided. The court further held that the practice of DOCS to confine inmates to the Special Housing Unit without any such basic service demonstrated deliberate indifference to their mental health needs and was cruel and unusual punishment. DOCS established a Special Treatment Program which provided group and individual therapeutic treatment to SHU inmates.
* A video tape system was installed on the units to provide a record of uses of force, which has resulted in a marked decline the use of excessive of force.
* Inmates on the unit obtained improved access to legal materials through the establishment of a mini-law library on the unit.
Griffin v. Coughlin, et al. (United States District Court, Northern District of New York)
This civil rights action challenged the conditions of confinement in the Protective Custody Unit of the Clinton Correctional Facility. The District Court issued an order improving inmate access to the law library and to religious services.
Hurley v. Coughlin, et al. (United States District Court, Southern District of New York)
This class action challenged DOCS policies and practices regarding the conduct of strip searches and searches of body cavities. Following a trial, the Court found DOCS' practices to be excessive, degrading, unreasonable, and unjustified in violation of plaintiffs' right to substantive due process. Thereafter, the parties entered into a Consent Decree which prohibited strips frisks in many situations unless there was probable cause. Following a pattern of non-compliance by DOCS with the terms of the consent decree, Judge Carter found DOCS to be in contempt. An agreement was reached and a Consent Order mandating a procedure for monitoring compliance with the Court's initial decree was entered into by the parties. This decision affects all inmates in DOCS custody. A claim by a group of women inmates at the Albion Correctional Facility that they were both viewed and videotaped by male corrections officers while undergoing strips searches resulted in a stop to the practice and an award of damages to the women.
Pease v. Coughlin et al. (United States District Court, Northern District of New York)
This civil rights action against Department of Correctional Services (DOCS) and Division of Parole defendants, which challenged the conditions of confinement and certain practices relating to the protective custody unit at Auburn, was settled by a stipulation and order. Prior to filing the lawsuit, protective custody (PC) inmates, solely as a result of their need for protection, were subject to harsh conditions and restrictions similar to those imposed on inmates in the disciplinary special housing unit. After the lawsuit was filed, the DOCS issued a directive which improved many of the complained of conditions. These improvements and others to which DOCS and the Division of Parole agreed, were incorporated into the stipulation and order of settlement. Improvements as a result of the settlement included increased access to family visits and personal property, increased out-of-cell time and recreational opportunities, greater access to the grievance program, increased access to law library materials and legal assistance, increased access to religious counseling and confidentiality for such counseling, increased protection for PC inmates from other inmates, and greater fairness and equity in consideration of PC inmates for parole release. The protective custody unit at Auburn holds from 25-40 inmates at any one time.
 Rivera, et al v. Coughlin, et al. (Supreme Court, Chemung County)
This Article 78 proceeding challenged conditions at the Southport Correctional Facility. A consent order granted inmates relief on a number of issues relating to the provision of services at the facility including requirements that medical personnel make daily rounds on the units, that counsellors be available on each unit every day, and that inmates be elected to an Inmate Grievance Resolution Committee. Access to cell study, legal visits, and cell cleaning materials were expanded as a result of the litigation. A provision allowing PLS to monitor conditions was included in the order. This decision affects the approximately 800 inmates at Southport.
Rodriguez v. McGinnis, Morse, and Alves, 98-CV-6031 (W.D.N.Y.) (Siragusa, J., Feldman, Mag.)
This Section 1983 action challenged, among other things, the imposition of the restricted diet on plaintiff, Mr. Rodriguez.. Mr. Rodriguez accumulated over a year’s worth of days on the restricted loaf diet but could not eat the loaf which caused him to lose an average of 10 pounds a week. His weight dropped from his regular 140 pounds, until at one point, he weighed only 114 pounds. The defendants moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. The Court found denied defendant McGinnis and Alves motion finding that there were triable issues of fact as to whether those defendants were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s health and safety. Mr. Rodriguez was released from prison during the pendency of the litigation and the case was ultimately settled with Mr. Rodriguez receiving monetary damages.
Walker v. Coughlin, et al. (United States District Court, Western District of New York)
This civil rights action which challenged the conditions in the protective custody unit at the Attica Correctional Facility was settled when the Department of Correctional Services issued a directive which corrected most of the conditions complained of. Prior to the settlement, these inmates were treated similarly to inmates in the disciplinary Special Housing Unit and were allowed out of their cells for only one hour a day. Conditions which were improved as a result of the settlement include out of cell time for recreation and meals several hours daily, reinstatement of inmates' eligibility for participation in the family reunion and phone home programs, institution of a cell study program, increased access to the law library and religious advisors, and improved meals. Approximately 35 inmates were affected by this settlement.
Waters v. Andrews, et al., 97-CV-0407 (W.D.N.Y.) (Acara, J., Faschio, Mag.)
This Section 1983 action involved an Albion inmate placed in SHU for mental health observation in May 1994. Plaintiff alleged that after admitting to defendants that she had considered harming herself two days earlier, she was placed in SHU under mental health observation. Although menstruating at the time of being strip frisked and placed into SHU, plaintiff alleged she was only provided with one paper gown, one sanitary napkin and no undergarments or other means to hold the sanitary napkin in place during her approximate 2 ½ days of SHU confinement. She was also denied soap, toothpaste, a toothbrush, a washcloth or other towel, denied a shower while under observation status and was denied any additional paper gowns or other clothing even after her gown became ripped and blood stained, exposing her body to male correctional staff and construction workers in the unit. Finally, plaintiff alleged being denied appropriate mental health treatment while confined in SHU. Negotiations led to plaintiff agreeing to enter into a settlement awarding $4,000.00 to the plaintiff.
top
DAMAGES FOR TIME SPENT IN SHU
Rubin Sira v. Morton, et. al., 380 F. 3d 57 (2d Cir. 2004)
This was a §1983 action for damages for six months spent in solitary confinement as a result of a Tier III hearing that was held in violation of Mr. Sira’s due process rights. Mr. Sira was one of many inmates charged with rule violations in December 1999 alleging that he was involved in planning a Y2K demonstration that was allegedly planned to occur on January 1, 2000. Mr. Sira was given a Tier III hearing charging him with, inter alia, demonstration. He was found guilty at his hearing but the determination was reversed on PLS’ administrative appeal. Defendants appealed the denial of their motion to dismiss to the Second Circuit. The 2d Circuit found that Mr. Sira presented three due process violations: (1) inadequate notice; (2) non-disclosure of confidential evidence relied on to support the disciplinary ruling, and; (3)insufficient evidence of misconduct.” The Court denied the defendants qualified immunity on the first two grounds but granted defendants qualified immunity on the issue of the adequacy of the evidence. As a result, defendants agreed to settle the case for money damages.
Eduardo Torres v. Testa, et al., 2005 WL 1174075 (May 18, 2005)
This 1983 case also sought damages for time spent in SHU on disciplinary charges that were ultimately reversed. The lawsuit was based upon the due process claim of inadequate notice and sought damages for the time Mr. Torres spent in SHU as a result of the constitutionally deficient superintendent’s hearing. The parties moved for summary judgment and the court granted summary judgment to plaintiff on grounds of inadequate notice of the charges. The case was then settled for money damages.
top
DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS
Alvarez v. Goord, 30 A.D. 3d 118, 813 N.Y.S.2d 564 (3d Dep’t 2006)
This Article 78 challenged a Tier III hearing that resulted in a penalty of 24 months in SHU together with a recommended loss of 24 months of good time. The challenge was based on the hearing officer’s failure to secure the testimony of a requested witness who allegedly refused to testify. The court found that the Hearing Officer failed to make a meaningful effort to ensure that the witness’ refusal was genuine but ordered a rehearing instead of expungement. PLS appealed that decision seeking expungement however the court found that the violation was a regulatory one and thus did not require expungement.
Barksdale v. Coughlin (New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department)
This Article 78 Proceeding along with 29 other actions were filed to challenge the disciplinary proceedings of inmates accused of participating in the Southport riot. The aggregate SHU time ordered as punishment in these cases exceeded 100 years. The Appellate Division granted new hearings in many of the cases.
Bryant v. Coughlin (New York State Court of Appeals)
In this case, the New York State Court of Appeals reversed the disciplinary hearing decisions of about fifty inmates who had allegedly participated in a riot in the mess hall at the Great Meadow Correctional Facility. The misbehavior reports of all of the prisoners contained identical descriptions of the events. The Court held that the inmates could not be found guilty of the charges against them based on the misbehavior reports because the reports did not state the specific role played by each inmate in the riot. This decision requiring that misbehavior reports describe with specificity the proscribed conduct potentially affects all inmates in New York State Correctional Facilities.
Cahill v. Goord, 36 A.D.3d 997, 827 N.Y.S.2d 336 (3d Dep’t 2007)
Petitioner was improperly denied access to letters he had allegedly written which served as the basis for charges against him in which he received thirty-six months SHU with corresponding loss of privileges. PLS argued that there was no legitimate or justifiable security concern to deny petitioner the opportunity to view his own alleged letters, letters which were the sole evidence against him. The court issued a Decision and Order, granting the petition but remanding for a new hearing, as opposed to reversing and expunging the disposition. PLS appealed the decision challenging the relief ordered but the 3d Department held that the proper remedy was a new hearing..
In the Matter of Davis v. Leclaire, Index No. 6489-06 (Albany County Supreme Court)
This Article 78 challenged a Tier III hearing on the grounds that the Hearing Officer violated the petitioner=s right to the production of evidence and to present a defense. Mr. Davis was accused of assaulting a correction officer, thereby necessitating a use of force. Mr. Davis denied the charges and requested use of force documentation relating to, and photographs of, the officer=s injuries. The hearing denied the request asserting that production of such documents was prohibited by HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act). The court found that by refusing to provide the petitioner with copies of the employee accident report and photographs of the employee=s injuries, the respondent had violated the petitioner=s right to the production of evidence. The court ordered the hearing reversed and all references to the charges expunged.
Forbes v. Goord. Index No. I-2005-6625 (Erie County Supreme Court) (Marshall, J)
Petitioner was charged with and found guilty of making threats and engaging in unauthorized organizational activities. The charges stemmed from prison officials reading petitioner’s correspondence pursuant to a “facility mail watch.” Petitioner was found guilty and received a penalty of 24 months in the special housing unit,and a recommendation of 24 months loss of good time. PLS filed an Article 78 asserting that respondent violated petitioner’s due process and regulatory rights by failing to include a mail watch authorization in the hearing record and by denying petitioner the right to call a relevant witness and introduce testimony crucial to his defense. The Court granted petitioner a reversal of hearing officer’s determination and remanded the case for a new administrative hearing.
In the Matter of John Havener v. Brian Fischer, Index No. 2008-1012 (Chemung County, Supreme Court)
This Article 78 proceeding challenged a Tier III hearing that resulted in the imposition of sanctions including 12 months of SHU and 24 months of Good Time. The charges related to information recovered as a result of an IG investigation and a mail watch. In spite of several requests for proof that a Superintendent had imposed a mail watch, the hearing officer refused to produce evidence in either written or testimonial form. The petition alleged that the hearing officer=s refusal constituted a violation of Mr. Havener=s right not to have his mail read in the absence of written permission from the Superintendent, and of his right to call witnesses. The court granted the petition, holding that the failure of the hearing officer to introduce the superintendent=s written authorization permitting a mail watch on petitioner=s incoming and outgoing mail deprived the HO=s determination of the necessary factual underpinning.
Huggins v. Coughlin (New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department)
This article 78 proceeding challenged a Hearing Officer's failure to independently assess the reliability and credibility of confidential information utilized to find an inmate guilty at a prison disciplinary proceeding. The Appellate Division granted the petition and awarded costs to PLS. This decision potentially affects every inmate in New York State custody.
Lopez v. Goord, Dutchess County Supreme Court, Index No. 2005/ 4264
Joel Landau, Staff Attorney, Albany
This Article 78 challenges the determination of a Tier III hearing where Mr. Lopez was charged with assaulting another prisoner in the yard, on the basis of confidential information. At the conclusion of the hearing, Lopez was found guilty and a penalty including 24 months SHU and 12 months recommended loss of good time was imposed. The petition alleges that he was denied his right to present documentary evidence, denied his right to see or to comment on evidence against him, and that the disposition is not supported by substantial evidence.
The most compelling issue that this case presents is the Hearing Officer’s refusal to permit petitioner to review the Unusual Incident Report of the subject incident in connection with the hearing. The Hearing Officer stated that he would not provide the Unusual Incident Report to petitioner because petitioner’s name was not mentioned and it has nothing to do with petitioner. PLS obtained the Unusual Incident Report through our own FOIL request. The UI report describes the same incident alleged in the misbehavior report, however, petitioner had apparently not yet been identified as a suspect when the UI report was prepared, and so his name is not mentioned in the UI. We are awaiting the court’s decision.
In the Matter of Jeffrey Pinckney v. LeClaire, Wyoming County Supreme Court (DiTullio, J.)
This Article 78 petition challenged the Hearing Officers failure to fully consider petitioner’s mental state in rendering a disposition and to provide petitioner with a written disposition indicating how he had considered petitioner’s mental state in rendering a disposition. The Court issued a bench decision, reversing the hearing disposition and expunging the charges.
In the Matter of Purcell v. Fischer, Index No. 3694-08 (Albany County Supreme Court)
In this Article 78, the court found a violation of petitioner=s fundamental right to be present at his own hearing, because there was no evidence that his exclusion was necessary to promote institutional security. The court also found a denial of petitioner=s right to call witnesses, since the one witness who had agreed to testify before petitioner was excluded from the hearing, was never called to testify.
In the Matter of Rush v. Goord, Albany County Supreme Court, Index No. 847-03
This Article 78 challenged a Tier III hearing where petitioner was found guilty of violent conduct, creating a disturbance, assault on staff, unhygienic act, interference, direct order and threats. He received 18 months SHU and loss of good time. The hearing was held in petitioner’s absence. It was claimed that he refused to attend. Petitioner denied he refused, and maintained the correction officer and the hearing officer lied on the record when they asserted that he had refused to attend. The petition sought reversal on the ground that the record was entirely devoid of any evidence showing that petitioner made a knowing, voluntary and intelligent waiver of his right to attend the hearing. The court issued a favorable determination for petitioner finding that the record was devoid of evidence that the petitioner had refused to attend his hearing.
Young v. Selsky (United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit)
At the request of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, Prisoners' Legal Services assumed appellate representation of an inmate who had filed a pro se case raising the issue of whether the DOCS employee who decides administrative appeals of prisoner disciplinary determinations (Donald Selsky) is entitled to absolute immunity from suit. The Circuit Court ruled that Selsky was not entitled to absolute immunity but rather to the more limited protection of qualified immunity. This decision affects all inmates in DOCS custody.
top
EXCESSIVE USE OF FORCE
Clients of Prisoners' Legal Services have been awarded damages as a result of findings by judges or juries that excessive force was used against them by staff of the Department of Correctional Services. Significant among these cases are:
Cay v. Burleigh, et al. (N.D.N.Y.)
The inmate in this case was awarded $14,000 in compensatory and a yet to be determined amount of punitive damages as a result of a determination by Magistrate Judge Scanlon that he was given a ,"quick, efficient and savage beating," by several Corrections Officers at the Clinton Correctional Facility. The court's decision demonstrates that the defendants flagrantly abused their authority as correction officers. As the court stated,"[d]efendants' lawless behavior which inflicted wanton injury [upon Mr. Cay] cannot be condoned."
Crespo v. Coughlin, et al. (N.D.N.Y.)
The plaintiff in this case alleged that he was assaulted by three corrections officers in the North Yard at the Clinton Correctional Facility. After a bench trial, damages of $30,000 were awarded to our client against a sergeant and two corrections officers. The Court found that,"[T]here was simply no need for the application of any force and it cannot be seriously argued that force was applied in a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline. Indeed, it is clear that it was applied maliciously for the sole purpose of causing harm."
Diaz and Marquez v. Weeden, Vitarius, et al. (N.D.N.Y.)
This brutality case which arose at the Shawangunk Correctional Facility resulted in an award of $50,000 to each plaintiff. Much of the assault on the plaintiffs was captured on videotape. Despite the videotape, a grand jury refused to indict any of the officers allegedly involved for any crime; however, one of the corrections officers, Julius Vitarius, was fired by DOCS as a result of the incident. In a related case challenging a disciplinary proceeding held concerning Mr. Diaz, the court found that,"When COS entered Diaz' cell ostensibly to escort him to the SHU, they proceeded to administer a totally unprovoked beating of Diaz and continued to assault him on the way to SHU. [Mr. Marquez] observed the beating...When the COS returned to get [Mr. Marquez]...[they] beat him with batons, fists and kicks, even after handcuffing and shackling him. They continued to physically abuse him enroute to the SHU and after arriving there."
Daniel Dugan v. State of New York, Court of Claims, Claim No. 110932
This excessive force case was filed in the Court of Claim seeking damages for injuries resulting from an incident that occurred at Green Haven Correctional Facility on July 7, 2004. Claimant allegedly exposed himself to a female officer and alleged that he was subsequently taken from his cell and beaten by a group of male officers. He was then returned to his cell. Later, an officer and a sergeant escorted claimant from his cell, and allegedly beat him again. Claimant was then escorted to SHU. He was not charged with nor was he confined on the basis of any incident regarding any physical altercation or use of force. No officers prepared any written documentation of any physical altercation or use of force involving the claimant. Upon admission to SHU the medical records indicated that no injuries were noted on claimant. However, the next day he began to complain of pain, and staff noted he was walking with a limp. X-rays eventually revealed that claimant sustained a broken shoulder, three broken ribs, and a broken right ankle. As a result of the serious injuries, claimant was moved from SHU to the Green Haven infirmary, and later to the infirmary at Sing Sing. He remained in the infirmary, until November 2, 2004. After extensive discovery, in 2008, a stipulation of settlement was signed by all parties wherein Mr. Dugan received a monetary settlement award in the amount of $9,750.00.
Gailhart v. Landry (N.D.N.Y.)
In this civil rights action, an inmate filed suit for injuries stemming from an alleged assault by a corrections officer at the Clinton Correctional Facility. Three employees of the DOCS Office of Labor Relations were added as defendants because they had failed on two prior occasions to discipline the officer, even though a DOCS investigator had concluded that on each occasion the officer had used excessive force. This case was settled for $10,000,
Johnson and Singh v. Westervelt, Mastrantonio, Paluch, Bennet and Mulhern, 03-CV-0176 (W.D.N.Y.) (Scott, Mag., J.) (Skretney, J.)
This excessive force case alleged that various officers caused and/or failed to intercede and prevent, and attempt to prevent, assaults upon plaintiffs Johnson and Singh, despite having a duty and reasonable opportunity to do so. As a result of the incident,. Johnson suffered a fractured rib, abrasions and bruises on his face and neck, an injury to his right eye as well as additional injuries to his head and body. Singh suffered bruises and abrasions to his face, feet, legs, arms, hands, and other parts of his body. After extensive discovery, the parties signed a Stipulation and Order of Settlement awarding the plaintiffs $17,500 in damages.
Lane v. Ball, et al. (N.D.N.Y.)
In this case, the court ruled that one of the defendant officers," used unreasonable gratuitous and excessive force maliciously and sadistically for the purpose of causing harm." The court found that this defendant struck plaintiff and then wrestled him to the floor with the help of other officers. While plaintiff was on the floor and subdued, he was struck and kicked in the face by the officer's booted foot causing plaintiff serious injuries. When plaintiff was then brought to his feet, the Court found that he was ,"[m]oved to a wall in handcuffs whereupon Covey again punched plaintiff several times including blows to the left side of his face in the area of his injured eye." After the Court found for the plaintiff on the question of liability, the damages portion of the case resulted in a $14,000 award for the plaintiff.
Otero v. Babbie, et al. (N.D.N.Y.)
Three inmate plaintiffs were awarded a total of $18,000 compensatory damages as well as punitive damages based on their claim that they were assaulted by 15 corrections officers and sergeants at the Clinton Correctional Facility. The inmates were repeatedly punched, kicked and struck with batons, often while their hands were cuffed behind their backs. Plaintiff Otero spent 10 weeks in the facility infirmary recovering from massive head and leg trauma including a broken foot. The Court characterized the officers' and sergeants' behavior as an,"unauthorized, improper and unreasonable use of force." It further held that to subject plaintiffs to this type of treatment,"particularly when in restraints was not only excessive but cowardly...No trained or even civilized, correction officer could believe that such conduct does not violate clearly established statutory and constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." In ordering nine of the defendants to pay punitive damages, Judge Smith noted in his decision that while," the duties of a corrections officer are difficult and not always pleasant..excessive force is inappropriate and can and will not be tolerated by society or the courts." Judge Smith indicated in his decision that the punitive damages were being imposed,"with the firm conviction gained from 13 years as a judicial officer handling litigation involving prisoners' claims of civil rights violations that the incidents occurred as described by plaintiffs and that such violations of prisoners' civil rights are not uncommon."
Pante v. Cheney, et al., 00-CV-6497 (W.D.N.Y.) (CJS)
Plaintiff, Mr. Pante filed a Section 1983 as a pro se litigant, claiming he was subjected to excessive use of force at Attica Correctional Facility. The Inspector General investigated the allegations of excessive use of force and determined that the force used was not justified. PLS filed a Notice of Appearance and after engaging in discovery we reached an agreement on a monetary settlement for plaintiff of $15,000.
Perez v. Blot, et. al. , 01-CV-7277 (S. D. N. Y.) (Knapp, J.)
This case, filed in June 2001, alleged that officers used excessive force on plaintiff, Mr. Perez, when he was being moved from a general population housing area to a special housing unit. As a result of the incident, Mr. Perez suffered a fracture of the left medial orbital, near his eye, multiple contusions, abrasions, swelling and injuries on his face and body. In January 2004, the defendants agreed to settle the case giving Mr. Perez $8, 750.00.
Pope v. Ricotta (S.D.N.Y.)
Mr. Pope was taken aside by officers at Green Haven for crossing over a line painted down the center of the hallway while he was on his way to the yard. He was cuffed with his hands behind his back and taken into a side room where a corrections officer allegedly punched him in the eye and other officers punched and hit him. He sustained several bruises and the punched eye became so swollen that the nurse who examined him shortly after the attack was unable to pry the eyelids apart to see if there was any damage to the eye. This case was settled for an award of $18,500 to the plaintiff.
Spulka v. Uhler et al. , 97-CV-0230 (N.D.N.Y.)
This §1983 action alleged a retaliatory assault by a correctional sergeant and two officers at Clinton in August 1995. The plaintiff alleged that he was called a derisive name by a C.O., that when he confronted the officer regarding the name calling the officer ordered him keeplocked and summoned an escort. During the escort, while the plaintiff attempted to speak with a sergeant, the sergeant struck the plaintiff in the face with his fist. The plaintiff in turn kicked the sergeant sending him to the floor. The plaintiff was wrestled to the floor by another officer and subdued. Plaintiff was then folded over a bench and a towel was wrapped tightly around his head while the sergeant took a baton and beat plaintiff’s feet, causing serious injury. The medical evidence supported the plaintiff’s version of events. The officers’ statements conflicted with one another and, in part, supported the plaintiff’s story. Just prior to trial a settlement of $16,500 was accepted by the plaintiff.
Williams v. Pickman, (N.D.N.Y.)
This 1983 action, filed against two sergeants and six officers alleged that they participated in an assault on Mr. Williams in August 1995. The complaint included supervisory liability claims against DOCS Labor Relations officials for their repeated failure to properly discipline officers. Prior to trial, an offer of settlement for $5,000.00 in compensatory damages was accepted by Mr. Williams.
top
FAILURE TO PROTECT
FIRST AMENDMENT/RELIGION
Abdul Wali v. Coughlin (United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit)
In this case, the Court ruled that prisoners at the Attica Correctional Facility had the right to receive a report prepared by Prisoners' Legal Services of New York concerning conditions at the prison and harshly condemning prison officials for their failure to respond to serious problems including guard brutality and racism at the prison.
Benjamin, et al. v. Coughlin, et al. (United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit)
This class action, brought on behalf of all New York State Rastafarian prisoners, successfully challenged the refusal of the Department of Correctional Services to recognize the Rastafari religion and the practice of DOCS to require initial haircuts for Rastafarian inmates.
Brown v. Coombe (United States District Court ,Northern District of New York)
This class action challenged, under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the Department of Correctional Services' rule requiring inmates to trim their beards to a length of no more than one inch. The stipulation of settlement permits inmates who are members of religions which have an established tenet against the trimming of beards to apply for exemptions to the rule.
Glass v. Coughlin, et al. (United States District Court, Southern District of New York)
This civil rights case was brought on behalf of an observant Jewish plaintiff who was transferred out of the Greenhaven Correctional Facility and the Kosher diet program because he complained about the prison Rabbi. Midway through discovery, the case was settled in plaintiff's behalf.
Hughes v. Goord (United States District Court, Western District of New York)
This class action secured the right of Native Americans to practice their religion at every Correctional Facility in New York. Prior to this action DOCS permitted the practice at only a few facilities. Native American inmates may now have congregate festivals throughout the year, weekly study sessions and make daily prayers in the traditional way.
Jackson v. Coughlin (United States District Court, Western District of New York)
This civil rights action challenged the policy of the Department of Correctional Services requiring initial entry haircuts for Native Americans in violation of their religious freedom. Plaintiff, a Mohawk, secured a Temporary Restraining Order and a Preliminary Injunction preventing DOCS from cutting his hair. Through negotiation, DOCS agreed to amend its policy and no longer requires Native Americans (as well as Taoists, Sikhs and Orthodox Jews) to get an initial haircut. A consent order was entered in this case.
Sobolof v. Coughlin (United States District Court, Northern District of New York)
In this civil rights action, plaintiff challenged the Department of Correctional Services' refusal to permit him to receive religious study tapes. DOCS then amended its directive in order to permit such tapes from bonafide religious organizations to enter the prison and a consent order was entered. This decision potentially affects all inmates in New York State prisons.
top
GUARDIANSHIP
In the Matter of the Guardianship of Brian Higham, In the Matter of the Guardianship of William Young, In the Matter of the Guardianship of Demetrius Mitchell, In the Matter of the Guardianship of Jane Doe, In the Matter of the Guardianship of Cynthia White
These five guardianship proceedings were brought following the refusal of the Division of Parole and the Department of Correctional Services to release on parole five prisoners who had lost the capacity to participate in the release process as a result of serious illness. Guardianship was used as a way of appointing a party legally authorized to sign the necessary documents thereby allowing the inmate to leave prison to die at home with his/her family. As prisoners become elderly or mentally incompetent during their incarceration as a result of illness, guardianship actions will become more important.
top
HABEAS CORPUS
People ex rel Billy Jo Shaffer v. Travis, et. al., (Westchester Co., Sup., Ct. ,Index No. 02-10698)
This was a habeas corpus action behalf of Ms. Shaffer who was held for more than one and ½ years after the expiration of her maximum term of incarceration. Ms. Shaffer was incarcerated in June of 1999, and sentenced to a two-year determinate term of incarceration with a three-year period of post-release supervision. After PLS filed the petition, the respondents found appropriate housing for petitioner and immediately released her.
People ex rel. Yelle v. Green, (Oneida County Supreme Court, Index No 2003-738)
This habeas corpus action demanded immediate release of petitioner Yelle, a sex offender, who was serving a 2-year determinate sentence with 3 years post release supervision. By respondent’s own calculations, Mr. Yelle’s maximum expiration date was August 8, 2001 however, after serving the two-year determinate sentence, parole refused to release him because he could not obtain a satisfactory residence. The court found in favor of petitioner holding, that, unlike conditional release, which is discretionary, the “right to release after serving the maximum term of one’s sentence is mandatory.”
top
JAIL TIME
Keene v. McCoy and Russi (Supreme Court, Cayuga County)
Morgan v. Hollins and Russi (Supreme Court, Oneida County)
Both of these matters were Writs of Habeas Corpus challenging the Division of Parole's failure to provide parole jail time credit for time spent in a local facility on a sentence ordered to run concurrent. The Division of Parole implemented a policy prohibiting parole jail time credit and applied it both prospectively and retroactively (to inmates sentenced prior to the change in policy). Petitioners in these cases were notified of the change in policy after they had accepted a plea bargain and were returned to DOCS' custody. This new policy resulted in Petitioners' maximum expiration date being extended by eight months. As a result of the litigation, Respondents were ordered to release Petitioners. Subsequent to the litigation, the Division of Parole rescinded this new policy and are currently providing parole jail time in appropriate cases.
top
MEDICAL
Charnock v. State (New York State Court of Claims)
Charnock v. Padman, et al. (United States District Court, Northern District of New York)
Thompson v. Hongisto, et al. (United States District Court, Southern District of New York)
In this case, we obtained a restraining order preventing the Department of Correctional Services from closing the Elderly and Handicapped Unit at the Fishkill Correctional Facility holding about 80 inmates requiring extraordinary or specialized medical treatment.
top
MENTAL HEALTH
Huggins v. Coughlin (New York State Court of Appeals)
The inmate in this case raised an insanity defense at a disciplinary hearing. The Court of Appeals held that the mental status of the inmate had to be "considered" by the Department of Correctional Services, but held that insanity in and of itself did not constitute a defense to a disciplinary charge.
Langley, et al. v. Coughlin et al. (United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit)
This class action regarding the provision of mental health care in the Bedford Hills Correctional Facility resulted in changes in the manner in which mentally ill inmates are disciplined for violation of the prison's rules of behavior. Prior to this case, mentally ill inmates were typically placed in solitary confinement for disciplinary infractions. This case requires that prior to placement of an inmate who has received mental health treatment in solitary confinement, a determination must be made by a mental health professional that such placement will not exacerbate her mental health problem. Additionally, substantial damages were won by mentally ill women who had been placed in isolation.
Rosado v. Kuhlman (New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department)
In this case, the Court held that the hearing officer in a prison disciplinary proceeding must consider the mental illness of the inmate facing charges even if this defense is not raised by the inmate.
Tomasulo v. LeFevre, et al. (United States District Court, Northern District of New York)
This civil rights action challenged the practices, procedures and conditions of the psychiatric observation and mental health units at the Clinton Correctional Facility. As a result of the stipulation settling the action, plaintiffs have been guaranteed (a) no more than 6 days placement in mental health cells; (b) substantial out-of-cell time, and when appropriate; (c) an end to strip celling; and (d) the placement of a video camera in the unit hallway.
top
PAROLE
Gonzalez v. Dalsheim (New York State Court of Appeals)
This case established the principle that a parolee is entitled to a prompt, final parole revocation hearing, notwithstanding the circumstance that s/he is in the physical custody of authorities in a sister state, unless the Parole Board shows that such hearing cannot be held subject to its convenience and control.
McCormick v. Gray (United States District Court, Southern District of New York)
This case challenged a parole condition imposed on our client which barred him from living with his wife on the theory that they were co-defendants. After oral argument, this matter was settled and the condition was lifted.
Piersma v. Henderson (New York State Court of Appeals)
The decision in this case requires that inmates who commit crimes while on parole are entitled to be granted a final parole revocation hearing without delay.
top
PROGRAMMING
Tracy v. Salamack (United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit)
This case established the principle that no prisoner participating in the temporary release program can be removed from the program on the allegation that their participation constitutes a threat to the security of the community except on a finding made in accordance with due process accompanied by a written statement of reasons.
top
SENTENCING
TPereira v. Fischer, (Orange County Supreme Court)
This Article 78 challenged the administrative imposition of post-release supervision. Our client was convicted of criminal possession of a weapon, and he received a five year determinate sentence but post-release supervision was not mentioned in the sentencing minutes of the commitment. When he arrived in DOCS custody, DOCS administratively added 3 years of post-release supervision. The court issued a favorable decision, granting the petition.
O’Brien v. Fischer, and Smith v. Fischer, (Albany County Supreme Court)
These Article 78 challenged DOCS administrative imposition of post-release supervision. We received a favorable decision from the Third Department, invalidating the period of PRS for both Mr. Smith and Mr. O’Brien.
State of New York, New York State DOCS, and New York State Division of Parole v. Michael Myers, Roger Smalls, Jesus Negron, and Malcom Carter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. (Albany County Supreme Court, Index No. 4834-08)
This extraordinary and novel case was commenced by the state as a defendant class action. The purported defendant class consisted of all people in prison or under parole supervision who received determinate sentences, required by statute to include post release supervision (PRS), but for whom the sentencing court did not specifically impose PRS, Legal Aid and the Albany County Public Defender represented the defendants..
Working with our co-counsel, we filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on numerous grounds, including that the complaint did not assert any cause of action against the defendants, that the case was moot in light of recent changes in the statute governing PRS, that this was not an appropriate case for a declaratory judgment, which was the only relief sought, and that, to the extent the proposed declaration would authorize Plaintiffs to hold defendants beyond the sentences actually imposed, it was without legal support. After extended discussions and filings Judge Egan granted our motion to dismiss.
Matter of Anthony Taylor v. Keating, Fraser, Goord, (Rensselaer Co., Sup., Ct. ,Index No. 202101)
This Article 78 proceeding sought an order requiring the respondents to properly credit petitioner with 284 days of jail time that he was denied. The Court ordered the respondent, Commission of the New York City Department of Corrections, to certify the additional 284 days of jail time to which Petitioner was entitled.
|
