Handberry v. Thompson
| Decision Date | 28 August 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 96 CIV. 6161.,96 CIV. 6161. |
| Parties | Zakunda-Ze HANDBERRY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. William C. THOMPSON, Jr., et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Dori A. Lewis, Mary Lynne Werlwas, Prisoners' Rights Project, Legal Aid Society, Brooklyn, NY, for plaintiffs.
Janice L. Birnbaum, Office of Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, New York City, for City defendants.
Judith T. Kramer, Office of Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General of the State of New York, New York City, for State defendant.
Reformation, like education, is a journey, not a destination.
Mary Belle Harris, I Knew Them in Prison (1936)1
Almost exactly six years ago, plaintiffs brought this class action suit against defendants the City of New York, the Board of Education of the City of New York ("BOE"), the New York City Department of Correction ("DOC"), and various city officials (collectively the "City defendants"). Also named as a defendant was the Commissioner of the New York State Education Department. The plaintiff class consists of inmates incarcerated at DOC facilities on Rikers Island who are sixteen to twenty-one years of age and have yet to receive a high school diploma or its equivalent. Plaintiffs allege that defendants have failed to provide them with educational services to which they are entitled under federal and state law.
In January 2000 this court granted plaintiffs' motion for declaratory and partial summary judgment against the City defendants, finding that the City defendants had violated the constitutional and statutory rights of plaintiffs. The court ordered the City defendants to submit for the court's approval a remedial plan "for providing full and complete educational facilities and services to all eligible Rikers Island inmates." Order, Jan. 7, 2000, ¶ 12. In April 2000 the City defendants submitted their "Education Plan for the Rikers Island Academies" ("Education Plan" or "Plan"). The court only reluctantly approved the Plan, noting that the Plan would "not meet all the needs of incarcerated youth inmates" and that it was "deficient in many respects." Order, June 29, 2000, ¶ 2. The court therefore simultaneously appointed a monitor to observe the Education Plan in action for a period of one year. See id. ¶¶ 3-4. After the one-year period of observation, the monitor was to file a report with the court and make recommendations for improvements to the Plan. See id.
The court-appointed monitor, Dr. Sheri Meisel (the "monitor"), filed her Final Report with the court in December 2001, and in response the parties submitted proposed modifications to the Education Plan. The Final Report and the parties' submissions make clear that the City defendants continue to fail to meet their obligations under state and federal law. Indeed, the City defendants appear to concede that modification to the Education Plan is necessary; they have submitted a four-page "Corrective Action Plan" for the court's approval which, they assert, will address any remaining shortcomings.
Plaintiffs object to the City defendants' Corrective Action Plan as woefully inadequate. Plaintiffs argue that defendants have had their opportunity to remedy the situation and have failed. Plaintiffs therefore argue for substantial court intervention and supervision over the provision of educational services to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have submitted a highly detailed, thirty-seven page Proposed Order which, to be blunt, approaches a policies and procedures manual in its depth and detail. Plaintiffs claim that such intrusiveness is necessary to ensure that the classmembers' rights are vindicated.
On April 12, 2002, the court heard the parties on their proposed modifications to the Education Plan, and the court permitted defendants to file post-argument replies. For the reasons stated in this opinion, the court will order several modifications to the original Education Plan. The court, however, is not inclined to engage in the sort of micromanaging that plaintiffs have proposed.
Finally, the court would be remiss if it failed to note that significant improvements have been made at Rikers Island over the past six years with regard to the educational services provided to classmembers. See Final Rep. at 8-9; Lisante Decl. ¶ 5; Conry Decl. ¶ 6. The court is pleased with the progress that has been made, and the court is confident that the City defendants — with a sensible degree of judicial nudging — can come into full compliance with the law. The Education Plan will be modified accordingly.
As an initial matter, the court would like to correct a misapprehension that the City defendants have. The City defendants insist that this court's entry of a declaratory judgment against them was only "based on plaintiffs' procedural due process claim[s]," and that the court "made no rulings on plaintiffs' IDEA, Rehabilitation Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, and state law claims." City Defs.' Resp. at 2. The City defendants are mistaken.
First, the court reminds the City defendants that the court granted plaintiffs' motion for declaratory judgment at the close of oral argument, reading out a handwritten order which stated "the motion for a declaratory judgment by plaintiff[s] in [their] favor is granted." Order, Jan. 7, 2000, ¶ 12. There were no restrictions placed on that grant. As plaintiffs' moving papers make clear, their motion for declaratory judgment was premised on the New York Constitution, New York Education Law, New York State Education and Executive Department regulations, the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act ("IDEA") and implementing regulations, the Rehabilitation Act and implementing regulations, the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and implementing regulations, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the United States Constitution. See Mem.Supp. Pls.' Mot. Declaratory J. & Partial Summ.J. Against City Defs. at 5-25.
Second, the court's subsequent opinion served primarily to reject the City defendants' purported "defenses" (mootness, abstention, and failure to exhaust administrative remedies) and to explain the rationale for the court's denial of the City defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment — a motion upon which the court had yet to rule. See Handberry v. Thompson, 92 F.Supp.2d 244, 247-48 (S.D.N.Y.2000). Since the court had already granted plaintiffs' motion for declaratory judgment from the bench, the court, in the interest of efficiency, kept the remainder of the opinion rather brief — the entire opinion consumes only five pages of the Federal Supplement 2d. The court did not survey the volumes of evidence presented that supported plaintiffs' claims, nor did the court survey all the relevant law upon which it relied when it had granted the motion two months earlier.
The court also reminds the City defendants that the court found that their original Education Plan did not "meet all of the needs of incarcerated youth inmates on Rikers Island and [was] deficient in many respects as disclosed by plaintiffs' proposed plan." Order, June 29, 2000, ¶ 2. If the court had, in fact, relied only upon plaintiffs' due process claims in evaluating the Plan, the court would not have found the Education Plan to be so inadequate.
Finally, to think that the court would only rule on plaintiffs' constitutional claims and no others strains credulity. The court would not have simply held the remaining claims in abeyance for two years without ruling on them, nor does the court believe that plaintiffs' zealous counsel would have sat by idly if everyone did not know that the court had, in fact, ruled on plaintiffs' statutory and regulatory claims as well as their constitutional ones. The City defendants' contention that their liability was premised only on plaintiffs' procedural due process claims is therefore without merit.
The court-appointed monitor, Dr. Sheri Meisel, issued her Final Report on December 5, 2001. In her Report, she details her observations regarding the provision of educational services at Rikers Island. The monitor based her findings upon numerous site visits over the course of the year, interviews with inmates, consultations with BOE and DOC employees and administrators, and an examination of BOE and DOC documents as well as submissions of the parties. Dr. Meisel, a non-lawyer, also makes some legal conclusions and recommendations concerning modification of the Educational Plan.
In their papers filed in response to the Final Report, plaintiffs have urged the court to simply adopt the Final Report's factual findings as findings of the court. See Pls.' Resp. at 5-6. At oral argument, however, plaintiffs retreated from that position: Oral Arg.Tr. 04/12/02 at 71.
The City defendants, in response to the Final Report, have submitted declarations from Steven Conry (DOC Bureau Chief of Management and Planning), Marjorie Weiner (a DOC research scientist), and Timothy Lisante (BOE Deputy Superintendent for Alternative, Adult and Continuing Education, Schools and Programs). These declarations contradict or clarify several findings of the monitor.
The court declines plaintiffs' initial invitation to a wholesale adoption of the Final Report. Rather, the court will adopt only specific factual findings contained in the Report, and only those findings which have been uncontroverted by the City defendants' submissions. The court will disregard the monitor's legal conclusions. Finally, while the court greatly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Handberry v. Thompson
...underlying this dispute. See Handberry v. Thompson, 92 F.Supp.2d 244 (S.D.N.Y.2000) ("Handberry I"), and Handberry v. Thompson, 219 F.Supp.2d 525 (S.D.N.Y.2002) ("Handberry II"). We recite them here only insofar as we think it necessary to explain our resolution of this The instant lawsuit ......
-
Dodge v. County of Orange, 02 CIV. 769(CM)(LMS), 02 CIV.8451(CM)(LMS).
...Ridge, 169 F.3d 178, 188 (3d Cir.1999); Smith v. Arkansas Dep't of Correction, 103 F.3d 637, 647 (8th Cir.1996); Handberry v. Thompson, 219 F.Supp.2d 525, 532-33 (S.D.N.Y.2002); Jones `El v. Berge, 164 F.Supp.2d 1096, 1116 Defendants argue that no injunction should issue, regardless of my f......
-
Handberry v. Thompson
...underlying this dispute. See Handberry v. Thompson, 92 F.Supp.2d 244 (S.D.N.Y.2000) ("Handberry I"), and Handberry v. Thompson, 219 F.Supp.2d 525 (S.D.N.Y.2002) ("Handberry II"). We recite them here only insofar as we think it necessary to explain our resolution of this The instant lawsuit ......
-
Buckley v. State Corr. Institution-Pine Grove
...speak with a teacher and solicit additional, direct instruction as needed. (Doc. 39, pp. 9–10). They advance that the district court in the Handberry case approved of cell study coupled with the opportunity for direct instruction as a means to educate inmates in disciplinary custody. See Ha......
-
Handberry v. Thompson.
...District Court COMMISSARY STAFFING LEVELS EMPLOYEE QUALIFICATIONS Handberry v. Thompson, 219 F.Supp.2d 525 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). Prison inmates who were between the ages of 16 and 21 brought a class action against city prison officials under [section] 1983 and a state education code, alleging fa......
-
Handberry v. Thompson.
...District Court PROGRAMS Handberry v. Thompson, 219 F.Supp.2d 525 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). Prison inmates who were between the ages of 16 and 21 brought a class action against city prison officials under [section] 1983 and a state education code, alleging failure to provide adequate educational serv......