AIDS

Doe v. Coughlin (United States District Court, Northern District of New York)

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

EXCESSIVE USE OF FORCE

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. (United States District Court, Northern District of New York)

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. (United States District Court, Northern District of New York)

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."
 
Gailhart v. Landry (United States District Court, Northern District of New York)

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,
 
Lane v. Ball, et al. (United States District Court, Northern District of New York)

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. (United States District Court, Northern District of New York)

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."

Pope v. Ricotta (United States District Court, Southern District of New York)

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.

top

CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT

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.

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.

Charnock v. State (New York State Court of Claims)
Charnock v. Padman, et al.  (United States District Court, Northern District of New York)

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.

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.

Kozlowski v. Coughlin, et al. (United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit)

In this class action, a consent decree was entered into which provides substantial due process protection to inmates and their visitors when the superintendent of the facility intends to suspend or terminate the visitation rights of visitors.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

top

DISCIPLINE

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.
 
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.

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

GUARDIANSHIP

top

JAIL TIME

top

MENTAL HEALTH

PAROLE

RELIGION/FIRST AMENDMENT

top