Jones v. Goord
| Decision Date | 26 May 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 95 Civ. 8026(GEL).,95 Civ. 8026(GEL). |
| Parties | David JONES, Issac Nelson, Kevin Martin, William Meachem, Clarence Suber, Tobias Walls, Henry Moreno, James White, Ramon Blas, Angelo Caravaggio, Roy Davis, Luciano Ortiz, Rory Dolan, Liberato Bermudez, Gregory Smith, Fruitquan Bailey, Todd Brockington, Renaldo Rivera, James Dixon, Juan Perdomo, Herbert Junior, Hector Lopez, Juan Rivera, Dwayne Faust, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Glenn S. GOORD, Acting Commissioner of the New York State Department of Correctional Services, Edmund Wutzer, Chairperson of the New York State Commission of Correction, Thomas J. Goldrick, Commissioner of the State Commission of Correction, Floyd Bennett, Superintendent of Elmira Correctional Facility, Hans Walker, Superintendent of Auburn Correctional Facility, Robert H. Kuhlmann, Superintendent of Sullivan Correctional Facility, David Miller, Superintendent of Eastern Correctional Facility and Christopher Artuz, Superintendent of Green Haven Correctional Facility, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Eric H. Queen, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, New York City, for Plaintiffs.
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General of the State of New York (by Barbara K. Hathaway, Barbara D. Maddox, Steven L. Banks, and Steven N. Schulman, Assistant Attorneys General), New York City, for Defendants.
In this class action, plaintiffs challenge New York State's administration of a program for double-celling in its maximum-security prisons. Double-celling is a practice in which two prisoners are housed in a cell originally designed for one person. Plaintiffs claim that defendants' practice of double-celling some New York inmates violates the First and Eighth Amendments. With respect to plaintiffs' Eighth Amendment claims, it is clearly established that double-celling, even in maximum security prisons, does not in itself constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 339, 349-50, 101 S.Ct. 2392, 69 L.Ed.2d 59 (1981). Plaintiffs nevertheless contend that the manner in which double-celling is carried out in New York violates the Constitution, because the practice results in "depriv[ing] inmates of the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities," id. at 347, 101 S.Ct. 2392, and demonstrates that the New York authorities have been deliberately indifferent to the health and safety of inmates in their charge. See Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 303-05, 111 S.Ct. 2321, 115 L.Ed.2d 271 (1991).
This litigation has a long history. The complaint was filed in 1995, making it one of the oldest active cases on this Court's individual docket, and the case has been assigned to several judges over the years. The case was effectively stayed for some time pending litigation of a companion case challenging the same practice in medium security prisons. After a full trial on the merits, Judge Stein denied the plaintiffs in that case any relief, in a lengthy and careful opinion. See Bolton v. Goord, 992 F.Supp. 604 (S.D.N.Y.1998).
On September 27, 1999, Judge Pauley dismissed portions of plaintiffs' second consolidated amended complaint, and granted in part plaintiffs' motion for class certification as to the remaining claims. Jones v. Goorcl, 190 F.R.D. 103 (S.D.N.Y. 1999). With respect to plaintiffs' demands for injunctive relief, the Court certified a class of all prisoners who have been double-celled in the subject facilities, and divided the double-celling class into thirteen subclasses, one for each of New York's maximum security institutions. Id. at 111-13. The Court, however, declined to certify a class or classes with respect to claims for damages, holding that "it is neither feasible nor desirable to determine monetary damages on a class-wide basis." Id. at 113. A third consolidated and amended complaint was filed in November 1999, addressing some of the deficiencies noted in Judge Pauley's decision, and extensive discovery followed, punctuated by occasional disputes requiring judicial intervention. See, e.g., Jones v. Goorel, No. 95 Civ. 8026, 2002 WL 1007614 (). For the most part, discovery focused on four institutions — Attica, Clinton, Great Meadow, and Green Haven — which have been treated as exemplary. Even with this limitation, the discovery process has been exhaustive and expensive, and has consumed the energies of numerous attorneys and support staff on both sides, over a period of years.
By the spring of 2003, the parties had finally completed discovery. On the elaborate record thus compiled, defendants now move for summary judgment both as to plaintiffs' class claims and individual plaintiffs' claims for damages.1 Briefing of the motions took over a year, with frequent requests for extensions of time. The motion was fully briefed by August 2004, and is now ripe for decision. Defendants' motion will be granted with respect to plaintiffs' class claims and plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief, and the Court will reserve decision with respect to individual plaintiffs' claims for damages.
New York State operates the fifth largest correctional system in the nation. (Def. R. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 8.) At the time defendants' motion for summary judgment was filed, approximately 65,400 inmates were in the custody of the New York Department of Correctional Services ("DOCS").
(Id.) Like many prison systems across the country, New York began to see a large increase in its prison population in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and state prisons at that time were often unable to accept inmates from local jails in a timely manner. (Id. ¶¶ 15, 17, 18.) These delays led to numerous lawsuits by various counties and municipalities, and DOCS began to discuss double-celling as a solution to the problem. (Id. ¶¶ 18-20.) After researching doublecelling policies in other jurisdictions, DOCS developed a double-celling policy for New York. (Id. ¶¶ 21-26.) In mid-1995 that plan was implemented in the thirteen maximum security prisons at issue in this litigation. (Id. ¶ 27.) Those thirteen prisons contain approximately 20,000 cells, 796 of which have been converted to double cells. (Id. ¶ 2, 29.) Those 796 cells are the focus of this litigation.
While the record does not contain evidence regarding each and every one of the 796 double cells at issue, plaintiffs' expert Vincent Nathan toured the four exemplary institutions and describes the double cells he observed. (See Zilberberg Decl. Ex. B [hereinafter Nathan Rep.].) For purposes of this motion, Nathan's descriptions of the cells will be accepted as accurate, and the following descriptions are taken from his report.2
Generally, Nathan describes the double cells as "well-maintained," but also "claustrophobic relatively dark, and cluttered with furnishings and personal property." (Id. 11.) Most of the cells have between 48 and 60 square feet of floor space, a "significant" portion of which is consumed by "bulky" metal bed frames. Nathan reports that in several cells he examined, he and his partner had a difficult time moving within the cell at the same time. (Id. 19-20.) Because most of the cells are in the interior and toward the front of the cellblock, natural light is available for the most part only from windows on the outer walls of the cellblocks.
Green Haven has 102 double cells, located toward the front of the cellblocks closest to the guards' station. Each double cell has 55 square feet of floor space and the following furnishings: a bunk bed 32 inches wide, 6 feet 8 inches long, and 6 feet high; two lockers, each 12 inches wide, 18 inches deep, and 7 feet high; a sink and a toilet; a fan on a shelf in the corner; a single fluorescent overhead light; an electrical outlet; and one or two radios. No double cell at Green Haven has a window, but all double cells face a walkway which has a bank of windows.
Nathan reports that there are 32 total double cells in Clinton — 26 in Clinton Main and 6 in Clinton Annex. Just as in Green Haven, the double cells are located toward the front of the cellblocks nearest the guards' station. All double cells in Clinton Main have 51 square feet of floor space and the following furnishings: a bunk bed 32 inches wide, 6 feet 8 inches long, and 6 feet high; two lockers, each 18 inches wide, 16 inches deep, and 4 feet high; a sink and a toilet; two personal fans; a single fluorescent light on the back wall; one electrical outlet; one television provided by DOCS; one or two radios; and a fold-down writing surface (with the exception of cells in Lower F cellblock). The double cells in Clinton Annex are similar, but have 80 square feet of floor space, a window, a fluorescent ceiling light, a small shelf on the wall opposite the bed, and no television.
There are 81 double cells in Great Meadow, and, as in the other prisons, all are located at the end of the cellblocks toward the guards' station. Double cells in C block and D block have 55 square feet of floor space, while the double cells in E block have approximately 50 square feet. All double cells in Great Meadow have the following furnishings: a bunk bed 32 inches wide, 6 feet 8 inches long, and 6 feet high; two lockers, each 15 inches wide, 16 inches deep, and 2 feet high; a sink and a toilet; one or two personal fans; a single fluorescent light; two clip-on lights; one electrical outlet; two televisions provided by DOCS; and one or two radios. All double cells face a walkway and a bank of windows, which provide natural light, although Nathan reports that the windows were dirty at the time of his visit to Great Meadow.
Attica has 107 double cells. Again, all double cells are located toward the front of the cellblocks near the guards'...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Onosamba-Ohindo v. Barr, 1:20-CV-00290 EAW
...sought, "there must be a named plaintiff sufficient to establish jurisdiction over each claim advanced"); see also Jones v. Goord , 435 F. Supp. 2d 221, 233 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (dismissing subclass claims for "lack of named plaintiffs").As to the claims of members of the proposed Main Class who......
-
Caplash v. Nielsen
... ... 's position at the administrative level and throughout the underlying civil litigation was directly contrary to the Supreme Court's decision in Jones v. Flowers , 547 U.S. 220, 126 S.Ct. 1708, 164 L.Ed.2d 415 (2006). (Dkt. 316 at 1316). In Jones , the Court addressed the due process obligations ... ...
-
Johnson v. N.Y. State Dep't of Corr. & Cmty. Supervision
...search of the record for evidence in support of plaintiffs' claims if they fail to provide it.'") (quoting Jones v. Goord, 435 F. Supp. 2d 221, 259 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)). For the most part, Johnson cites non-actionable, episodic incidents, such as individual disciplinary proceedings (some of whi......
-
Wagschal v. Skoufis
...inappropriate for Court's to revive a moot case by speculating about a defendant's future actions. See, e.g. , Jones v. Goord , 435 F. Supp. 2d 221, 256 n. 36 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (refusing to "project" that plaintiff might someday be subject to same unlawful conduct that defendants had voluntar......