Jones-Bey v. Caso, JONES-BE
| Decision Date | 17 May 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 988,D,P,JONES-BE,988 |
| Citation | 535 F.2d 1360 |
| Parties | Charleslaintiff-Appellant, v. Ralph G. CASO, County Executive of Nassau County, et al., Defendants-Appellees. ocket 76-2001. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Jean Sharpe, law student assistant, * Robert Hermann, Washington Square Legal Services, Inc., New York City, for plaintiff-appellant.
James M. Catterson, Jr., County Atty. of Nassau County, Port Jefferson, N. Y., (Natale C. Tedone, Senior Deputy Atty., Mineola, N. Y., of counsel), for defendants-appellees.
Before KAUFMAN, Chief Judge, and SMITH and MANSFIELD, Circuit Judges.
Judge Judd dismissed as moot Charles Jones-Bey's pro se complaint seeking money damages, injunctive and declaratory relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for conditions of confinement at the Nassau County Jail. The complaint alleged, inter alia, that the living conditions, the treatment of prisoners, and the enforcement of certain of the institution's regulations and rules constituted cruel and unusual punishment and a denial of both equal protection and due process of law.
The conditions of confinement with which appellant took issue included the inability of pre-trial detainees to wear personal clothing, inadequate recreation, limitations on telephone, mail, and visitation privileges, allegedly inadequate medical staff and treatment, and oppressive procedures for transporting prisoners to courthouses. He sought, in addition to injunctive and declaratory relief from these conditions, $100,000 in compensatory damages and $15,000 in punitive damages.
Some two years earlier a class action complaint had been filed on behalf of all pre-trial detainees at the Nassau County Jail which alleged a number of the same constitutional violations complained of by Jones-Bey. Palma v. Treuchtlinger, No. 72 C. 1653. The class representatives, however, sought only declaratory and injunctive relief. On March 20, 1973, Judge Judd ordered Palma maintained as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides:
(b) Class Actions Maintainable. An action may be maintained as a class action if the prerequisites of subdivision (a) are satisfied, and in addition:
(2) the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole; . . .
Judge Judd also delimited the class membership to include "all persons incarcerated in the Nassau...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crowder v. Lash
...in which only declaratory and injunctive relief were sought. Cotton v. Hutto, 577 F.2d 453, 454 (8th Cir. 1978); Jones-Bey v. Caso, 535 F.2d 1360, 1361-62 (2d Cir. 1976). In addition, this court recently noted, in a closely related context, that another prisoner, who was also a class member......
-
Morgan v. Ward
...cert. denied, 444 U.S. 883, 100 S.Ct. 173, 62 L.Ed.2d 113 (1979); Cotton v. Hutto, 577 F.2d 453, 454 (8th Cir.1978); Jones-Bey v. Caso, 535 F.2d 1360, 1361-62 (2d Cir.1976). In most of the above-cited cases, the plaintiff class had prevailed in the prior class action for declaratory relief,......
-
J.B. v. Onondaga Cnty.
...seeking only declaratory or injunctive relief does not bar subsequent individual suits for damages." Id.; see also Jones-Bey v. Caso, 535 F.2d 1360, 1362 (2d Cir. 1976) (finding class action consent judgment enjoining conditions of confinement on behalf of pretrial detainees at jail did not......
-
In re Jackson Lockdown/MCO Cases
...1007-9 (7th Cir.1982); Herron v. Beck, 693 F.2d 125 (11th Cir.1982); Bogard v. Cook, 586 F.2d 399, 406-9 (5th Cir.1978); Jones-Bey v. Caso, 535 F.2d 1360 (2nd Cir.1976). The reasoning of Bogard for not giving the prior class action, Gates v. Collier, 349 F.Supp. 881 (N.D.Miss.1972), aff'd, ......
-
Judicial Relief and Remedies
...could be calculated and recompensed in the form of damages, DFW did not prove a likelihood of irreparable injury.”); Triebwasser , 535 F.2d at 1360 (Sherman Act case) (“whatever reasonable costs are undertaken to secure comparable advertising in media not adverse to accepting the advertisem......