Doe v. Coughlin

• Decision Date: 15 July 1986
• Parties: In the Matter of John and Jane DOE, Petitioners, for a judgment pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules v. Thomas A. COUGHLIN, III, Commissioner, New York State Department of Correctional Services; Dr. Raymond Broaddus, Assistant Commissioner of Health Services, New York State Department of Correctional Services; Reverend Dr. Earl B. Moore, Assistant Commissioner, Ministerial and Family Services, New York State Department of Correctional Services; Robert Henderson, Superintendent, Auburn Correctional Facility; and Stephen J. Kott, Family Services Coordinator, Auburn Correctional Facility, Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court

Page 534

505 N.Y.S.2d 534

132 Misc.2d 709

In the Matter of John and Jane DOE, Petitioners,

for a judgment pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice

Law and Rules v. Thomas A. COUGHLIN, III, Commissioner, New York State

Department of Correctional Services; Dr. Raymond Broaddus,

Assistant Commissioner of Health Services, New York State

Department of Correctional Services; Reverend Dr. Earl B.

Moore, Assistant Commissioner, Ministerial and Family

Services, New York State Department of Correctional

Services; Robert Henderson, Superintendent, Auburn

Correctional Facility; and Stephen J. Kott, Family Services

Coordinator, Auburn Correctional Facility, Respondents.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Albany County.

July 15, 1986.

Deborah Schneer, Robert Selcov and David C. Leven, Prisoners' Legal Services of New York, Poughkeepsie, for petitioner John Doe.

Horn, Heins, Finkelstein & Pezzulo (Susan Finkelstein, of counsel), Syracuse, for petitioner Jane Doe.

Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen. (Lawrence Doolittle, of counsel), Albany, for respondents.

LAWRENCE E. KAHN, Justice Presiding.

In the above captioned Article 78 proceeding, petitioners seek a judgment directing that they be allowed participation in the "Family Reunion Program" at Auburn Correctional Facility.

The facts necessary for a resolution of this litigation are not in dispute. John Doe is currently serving an indeterminate term of imprisonment for a period of 5 1/2 to 11 years. During this period of incarceration he married petitioner Jane Doe. In October of 1985, petitioners were afforded access to a trailer on prison grounds for approximately 48 hours. On or about December 31, 1985, John Doe was diagnosed as having Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). He is presently housed in isolation in the hospital unit of the facility. On February 28, 1986, his request for a second trailer visit was denied for reasons of health. On April 28, 1986 the denial was reaffirmed upon the ground that he had been "diagnosed as having a communicable disease." The instant proceeding was thereafter commenced.

The "germ theory of disease" was non-existent prior to the late nineteenth century. (The Role of the Federal Government in Protecting Citizens from Communicable Diseases, 47 U.Cinn.L.Rev. 537). It was in this climate that Edgar Allen Poe penned one of his most chilling tales: "The Masque of the Red Death." Therein, while plague swept the countryside, a group of people locked themselves in the seclusion of a castle. They decided that the "external world could take care of itself." However, this was not to be, for despite their efforts, the disease "had come like a thief in the night." It was the popular myth that no one was safe from a disease, the origins of which were unknown. Prevention was thought impossible. Notwithstanding the substantial passage of time, vestiges of this anxiety are prevalent today. "While it is obvious that medical knowledge has changed vastly in the past century, there is little to suggest that basic human responses to disease have changed at all. People are still afraid of both disease and the sick." (Fear itself: AIDS, Herpes and Public Health Decisions, Yale Law & Policy Review, 479, 480, 1985). This attitude is most dramatically demonstrated by the public concern vis-a-vis the spread of AIDS. As such, it is incumbent upon the courts to render determinations on the basis of sound legal principles with guidance from the latest medical and scientific research available.

Initially, the court rejects petitioners' assertion that 42 USC, section 1983 is applicable to the case at bar. That statute affords a remedy in the form of an action at law or other proceeding where a party has been deprived of constitutional rights, privileges or immunities by a state official's abuse of his position. It is not a source of substantive rights, but rather, was enacted as a vehicle to ensure that rights obtained through the United States Constitution or Federal statutes are enforced (Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 99 S.Ct. 2689, 61 L.Ed. 433; Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 81 S.Ct. 473, 5 L.Ed.2d 492).

The assertion that denial of participation violates petitioner's right to privacy pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution has been specifically rejected (Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners' Union, 433 U.S. 119, 97 S.Ct. 2532, 53 L.Ed.2d 629; Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 94 S.Ct. 2800, 41 L.Ed.2d 495). The argument that decisions concerning sexual relations between husband and wife are protected by the fundamental right to marital privacy (Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 14 L.Ed.2d 510) is unavailing. While petitioners would certainly be protected from state interference in the privacy of their own home, that right has been abrogated during petitioner John Doe's period of incarceration (Stuart v. Heard, 359 F.Supp. 921). Similarly, participation is not mandated by any Equal Protection argument (Cordero v. Coughlin, 607 F.Supp. 9, 10 [S.D.N.Y.1984]. Finally, petitioners can receive no benefit from 29 USC, section 794 (The Rehabilitation Act of 1973) in that the Auburn Correctional Facility does not utilize any federal funds to support its trailer visitation program.

The remaining issue is whether respondent's determination to deny petitioner's request for a trailer visit has a rational basis. Title 7, Part 220 of the Rules and Regulations of the State of New York provide for a "Family Reunion Program" within the Department of Correctional Services. "The goal of the program is to preserve, enhance and strengthen family ties that have been disrupted as a result of incarceration." This court must profess a...