Disability Rights N.Y. v. N.Y. State Dep't of Corr. & Comty. Supervision
| Decision Date | 24 September 2019 |
| Docket Number | 1:18-CV-0980 (GTS/CFH) |
| Parties | DISABILITY RIGHTS NEW YORK, Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK STATE DEP'T OF CORR. AND CMTY. SUPERVISION; and ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI, in his official capacity as the Acting Comm'r of the New York State Dep't of Corr. and Cmty. Supervision, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York |
APPEARANCES:
DISABILITY RIGHTS NEW YORK
Counsel for Plaintiff
BETSY C. STERLING, ESQ.
BRANDY L. L. TOMLINSON, ESQ.
CHRISTINA ASBEE, ESQ.
JENNIFER J. MONTHIE, ESQ.
BRIAN W. MATULA, ESQ.
Currently before the Court, in this civil rights action filed by Disability Rights New York ("Plaintiff" or "DRNY") against the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision ("DOCCS") and its Acting Commissioner, Anthony Annucci (collectively, "Defendants"), are the following three motions: (1) Plaintiff's motion for permission to refer to the inmates referenced in the Complaint by pseudonyms; (2) Defendants' motion for summary judgment; and (3) Plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. Nos. 5, 15, 25.) For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's motion to use pseudonyms is granted, Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part, and Plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment is denied.
Generally, liberally construed, Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that DRNY is the federally designated Protection and Advocacy ("P&A system") system in the State of New York and it possesses the right to access certain records pursuant to a number of federal statutes. (Dkt. No. 1, at ¶ 1 [Plf.'s Compl.].) These rights are intended to further DRNY's federally funded activities related to the following: (1) investigating incidents of abuse and neglect of individuals with disabilities; (2) pursuing administrative, legal, and other appropriate remedies on behalf of those individuals; and (3) providing information and referrals related to programs and services addressing the needs of persons with disabilities. (Id. at ¶ 13.) Relying on this statutory authority, DRNY has made numerous requests for records from DOCCS, and has provided DOCCS a reasonable time frame in which to respond. (Id. at ¶¶ 251-52.) However, DOCCS has unlawfully denied or delayed DRNY's access to the records of 32 inmates held in DOCCS' custody, and one deceased inmate who died while in DOCCS' custody, in violation of one or more of the P&A statutes. (Id.)
Based on these factual allegations, Plaintiff asserts four claims: (1) a claim for reliefpursuant to the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000 ("DD Act"), 42 U.S.C. § 15041 et seq.; (2) a claim for relief pursuant to the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act of 1986 ("PAIMI Act"), 42 U.S.C. § 10801 et seq.; (3) a claim for relief pursuant to the Protection and Advocacy of Individual Rights Act ("PAIR Act"), 29 U.S.C. § 794e (collectively the "P&A statutes"); and (4) a claim for relief pursuant to the Protection and Advocacy for Assistive Technology Act of 2004 ("PAAT Act"), 29 U.S.C.A. § 3001 et seq.1 (Id. at ¶¶ 253-76.)
As relief, Plaintiff's Complaint requests the following: (1) a declaratory judgment that Defendants have violated Plaintiff's rights under the DD Act, the PAIMI Act, the PAIR Act, the PAAT Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (2) a declaratory judgment that Defendants have an obligation to ensure that the access rights granted to Plaintiff by the P&A statutes are fully and uniformly implemented; (3) a permanent injunction ordering Defendants to provide timely and complete responses to all outstanding and future record requests made by Plaintiff pursuant to its federally mandated P&A authority; and (4) an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. (Id. at 24.)
Further familiarity with the Complaint's factual allegations, legal claims and requests for relief is assumed in this Decision and Order, which is intended primarily for review by the parties. The Court would conclude its summary by adding merely that Plaintiff's Complaintalleges violations of the P&A statutes related to the records of only Inmates A through HH. (Dkt. No. 1 [Plf.'s Compl.].) However, in support of its cross-motion, Plaintiff has alleged additional facts involving record requests related to a number of other inmates, identified as Inmates II through SS. Because Plaintiff has not requested or been granted leave to amend its Complaint to include these additional facts,2 they will not be considered in deciding the current cross-motions for summary judgment.
1. Undisputed Material Facts on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment
The following facts have been asserted and supported with accurate record citations by Defendants in their Statement of Material Facts, and expressly admitted or not denied with a supporting record citation by Plaintiff in its response thereto.
2. Generally, Plaintiff did not allege in any of its requests to DOCCS at issue in this case that the inmates, whose records were the subject of the requests, were individuals who had a "developmental disability" or "a significant mental illness or emotional impairment, as determined by a mental health professional qualified under the laws and regulations of the State." The only time that Plaintiff referenced any specific disability was in regard to its requests for records related to Inmate E and Inmate V. 3. With the exception of certain of Inmate A's records, Plaintiff has never been denied physical access to physical files maintained by DOCCS in any of its facilities, with regard to the requests identified in the Complaint.
4. Plaintiff was provided with the records it requested pertaining to Inmate T on or about July 26, 2018.
5. Plaintiff was provided with the records it requested pertaining to Inmate U on or about July 26, 2018.
6. With respect to all record requests identified in the Complaint, Plaintiff requested that DOCCS provide an estimate of copying costs prior to the production of responsive records.
7. When DOCCS provided the cost estimate requested by Plaintiff for records related to Inmates B through Z, and BB through HH, DOCCS also offered Plaintiff physical access to the records as an alternative to waiting for DOCCS to provide copies.
8. Plaintiff has never paid for the records requested for Inmate E.
9. Plaintiff's payment for records of Inmate FF was deposited by DOCCS five days before Plaintiff filed its Complaint.
10. Plaintiff's payment for records of Inmate GG was deposited by DOCCS one day after Plaintiff filed its Complaint.
11. Before filing its Complaint, Plaintiff was provided with the records of Inmates B, C, E, F, K, L, M, N, T, U, and W, as well as records pertaining to Residential Treatment Facilities ("RTFs") operated by DOCCS.
12. After filing its Complaint, Plaintiff was provided with records related to Inmates D, G, H, I, J, O, P, Q, R, S, X, Z, AA, BB, DD, EE, FF, GG and HH. 13. Plaintiff never identified any specific inmate in connection with its request for records pertaining to RTFs operated by DOCCS.
14. Plaintiff never requested that it be provided with access to the physical files of Inmate A.
The following facts have been asserted and supported with accurate record citations by Plaintiff in its Statement of Material Facts, and expressly admitted or not denied with a supporting record citation by Defendants in their response thereto.
1. The State of New York has established a P&A System.
2. Disability Advocates, Inc., is an independent non-profit corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York. It does business and has sued under the name Disability Rights New York.
3. At all times relevant to this action, DRNY has been and is the statewide P&A system designated by the Governor of the State of New York to protect and advocate for the legal and civil rights of people with disabilities in the State of New York.
4. Defendant Annucci is the Acting Commissioner of DOCCS.
5. Defendant DOCCS is an agency within the New York State Executive Department.
6. Defendant DOCCS is a state agency whose responsibilities include the operation of correctional facilities, including housing for inmates with disabilities.
7. From January 1, 2018, to the present, DRNY has made requests for access to records pursuant to the P&A statutes for individuals with disabilities who it believes are in the custody of DOCCS.
8. DOCCS' counsel, Cathy Y. Sheehan, instructed DRNY to submit all document requests by email to a specific email address.
9. Sheehan later instructed DRNY to submit all document requests to a different email address.
10. With regard to its requests for records related to Inmates B through HH, DRNY provided DOCCS more time than prescribed in the P&A statutes to provide copies.
11. DRNY regularly extended the timeline for releasing records from three business days (as...
To continue reading
Request your trial