Keitt v. New York City, 09 Civ. 8508 (GBD) (DF)

• Decision Date: 26 August 2011
• Docket Number: 09 Civ. 8508 (GBD) (DF)
• Parties: DEVIN KEITT, Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK CITY, et al. Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

DEVIN KEITT, Plaintiff,

v.NEW YORK CITY, et al. Defendants.

09 Civ. 8508 (GBD) (DF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

August 26, 2011

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE GEORGE B. DANIELS, U.S.D.J.:

Plaintiff Devin Keitt ("Keitt"), currently incarcerated in Attica Correctional Facility ("Attica") and acting pro se, brings this action under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act ("IDEA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq., Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 794 et seq., and the Equal Education Opportunities Act ("EEOA"), 20 U.S.C. §§ 1701 et seq. He also asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of his rights under the First, Eighth and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution, and claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1985 and 1986.

Keitt names the City of New York and three of its agencies (the Department of Correction ("DOC"), the Department of Education ("DOE") and the Department of Juvenile Justice ("DJJ")), as well as Mayor Bloomberg ("Bloomberg")¹ and Dora Schriro, the Commissioner of DOC ("Schriro") (collectively "the City Defendants"). Keitt also names the State of New York and two of its agencies (the Department of Correctional Services ("DOCS") and the State Education Department ("SED")), as well as Brian Fischer, Commissioner of DOCS("Fischer"); Mark Bradt, former Superintendent of Elmira Correctional Facility ("Bradt"); and four additional Elmira employees (Douglas C. Reynolds ("Reynolds"), B. Fusco ("Fusco"), V. Livermore ("Livermore"), and T. Lepkowski ("Lepkowski")) (collectively "the State Defendants"). The City and State Defendants are collectively referred to herein as "Defendants."

Keitt alleges that he is dyslexic and that Defendants failed to accommodate his disability in the public school system through 1998, and in education programs offered in (a) juvenile detention facilities from 1995-97, (b) Rikers Island facilities operated by DOC beginning in 1998, and (c) various state facilities operated by DOCS. Keitt also alleges that, during his detention at the Elmira Correctional Facility ("Elmira") in Chemung County, New York, Defendants failed to accommodate his dyslexia in disciplinary proceedings and retaliated against him for filing grievances regarding alleged failures to accommodate his dyslexia in both educational programs and disciplinary proceedings. Finally, Keitt challenges Elmira's policy requiring prisoners who have not obtained a high school diploma or its equivalency to attend adult basic education programs (even if such programs are wholly unsuitable without reasonable accommodations) or else forfeit their ability to participate in other programming. Keitt seeks compensatory and punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief.

This matter is before me on motions by both the City (Dkt. 33) and State Defendants (Dkt. 35) to dismiss the IDEA, EEOA, ADA, Rehabilitation Act and Section 1983 claims in the Amended Complaint. The City Defendants also move to dismiss the claims under Sections 1981, 1985 and 1986. The State Defendants move to sever the remaining claims arising at Elmira and to transfer such claims to the Western District of New York. Keitt opposes themotions to dismiss and brings a motion (Dkt. 49) for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. All Defendants oppose the motion to amend.

For the reasons set forth below, I recommend that the motions to dismiss be granted in part and denied in part, the motion to sever the claims arising at Elmira be denied as moot because these are the only remaining claims, the motion to transfer to the Western District be granted as to the remaining claims, which are against only State Defendants, and the motion to amend be denied without prejudice to Keitt's renewal of his request for leave to amend in the transferee court.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

BACKGROUND................................................................................................................................... 6

A. Factual Background....................................................................................................... 6

1. Keitt's Time in Public School and in Juvenile Detention................................6

2. Detention in City (DOC) and State (DOCS) Facilities......................................7

B. Procedural Background.................................................................................................. 8

DISCUSSION...................................................................................................................................... 12

I. Motions to Dismiss..................................................................................................................12

A. Applicable Legal Standards......................................................................................... 12

B. EEOA Claims............................................................................................................... 14

C. IDEA Claims................................................................................................................ 15

1. Exhaustion........................................................................................................15

2. Statute of Limitations....................................................................................... 18

a. Applicable Limitations Period.............................................................19

b. Accrual of Keitt's Claims....................................................................20

c. Potential Tolling...................................................................................21D. Section 1981 Claims....................................................................................................26

E. Section 1983, 1985 and 1986 Claims.......................................................................... 28

1. Statute of Limitations.......................................................................................28

a. Applicable Limitations Period.............................................................28

b. Accrual of Keitt's Claims....................................................................28

i. Claims Arising Out of Public School Attendance...................................................29

ii. Claims Arising Out of Juvenile Detention...........................................................29

iii. Claims Arising Out of Initial Period of State Incarceration...................................................29

iv. Claims Arising Out of Detention in City Facilities (Rikers Island)............................................30

c. Potential Tolling...................................................................................31

2. Remaining Section 1983, 1985 and 1986 Claims............................................34

a. Adequacy of Pleading........................................................................34

b. 11th Amendment Immunity and Available Relief, Under Sections 1983, 1985 and 1986......................................39

i. Damages...................................................................................40

ii. Injunctive Relief.......................................................................41

F. ADA and Rehabilitation Act Claims...........................................................................44

1. Statute of Limitations.......................................................................................44

a. Applicable Limitations Period.............................................................44

i. Title II of the ADA..................................................................45

ii. Rehabilitation Act....................................................................47

b. Accrual of Keitt's Claims and Unavailability of Tolling....................472. Remaining ADA and Rehabilitation Act Claims.............................................49

a. Adequacy of Pleading........................................................................49

b. Potential Immunity and Available Relief Under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act...............................................52

i. 11th Amendment Immunity as to ADA...................................52

ii. 11th Amendment Immunity as to Rehabilitation Act..............54

iii. Damages................................................................................ 56

iv. Injunctive Relief.................................................................... 57

II. MOTION TO SEVER AND TRANSFER CLAIMS ARISING AT ELMIRA......................58

A. Section 1404(a) Standards..........................................................................................59

B. Transfer Considerations in This Case..........................................................................60

III. KEITT'S MOTION TO AMEND...........................................................................................62

A. Rule 15(a) Standards...................................................................................................62

B. Proposed Amendments................................................................................................64

1. Proposed Modification of Claims Directed to City Defendants......................64

2. Proposed New Claims Directed to Existing or Newly-Named State Defendants...................................................65

CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 66

BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

The facts summarized herein are primarily taken from Keitt's Amended Complaint, and are taken as true for purposes of Defendants' motions to dismiss. (See infra, at 13.)

1. Keitt's Time in Public School and in Juvenile Detention

Devin Keitt was born on February 25, 1981. (See Keitt's Individualized Education Plan ("IEP"), dated 1995 (Am. Compl., Ex. 1).) When he was nine years old, his mother took him to a clinical...