V.W. v. Conway, 9:16–CV–1150

• Court: United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of New York
• Writing for the Court: DAVID N. HURD, United States District Judge
• Citation: 236 F.Supp.3d 554
• Parties: V.W., a minor, BY AND THROUGH his parent and natural guardian Dereck WILLIAMS, R.C., a minor, by and through his parent and natural guardian Sandra Chambers, C.I., a minor, by and through his parent and natural guardian Vertell Pendarvis, M.R., a minor, by and through his parent and natural guardian Karen Raymond, F.K., a minor, by and through his parent and natural guardian Kashinde Kabagwira, and J.P., a minor, by and through his parent and natural guardian Alissa Quiones, Plaintiffs, v. Eugene CONWAY, Onondaga County Sheriff in his official capacity, Esteban Gonzalez, Chief Custody Deputy of the Onondaga County Justice Center, in his official capacity, Kevin M. Brisson, Assistant Chief Custody Deputy, in his official capacity, and Syracuse City School District, Defendants.
• Docket Number: 9:16–CV–1150
• Decision Date: 22 February 2017

236 F.Supp.3d 554

V.W., a minor, BY AND THROUGH his parent and natural guardian Dereck WILLIAMS, R.C., a minor, by and through his parent and natural guardian Sandra Chambers, C.I., a minor, by and through his parent and natural guardian Vertell Pendarvis, M.R., a minor, by and through his parent and natural guardian Karen Raymond, F.K., a minor, by and through his parent and natural guardian Kashinde Kabagwira, and J.P., a minor, by and through his parent and natural guardian Alissa Quiones, Plaintiffs,
v.
Eugene CONWAY, Onondaga County Sheriff in his official capacity, Esteban Gonzalez, Chief Custody Deputy of the Onondaga County Justice Center, in his official capacity, Kevin M. Brisson, Assistant Chief Custody Deputy, in his official capacity, and Syracuse City School District, Defendants.

9:16–CV–1150

United States District Court, N.D. New York.

Signed February 22, 2017

236 F.Supp.3d 563

NEW YORK CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, OF COUNSEL: CHRISTOPHER T. DUNN, ESQ., MARIKO HIROSE, ESQ., PHILIP L. DESGRANGES, ESQ., AADHITHI PADMANABHAN, ESQ., MARIANA L. KOVEL, ESQ., 125 Broad Street, 19th Floor, New York, NY 10004, Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

LEGAL SERVICES OF CENTRAL NEW YORK, OF COUNSEL: JOSHUA T. COTTER, ESQ., SAMUEL C. YOUNG, ESQ., SUSAN M. YOUNG, ESQ., 221 South Warren Street, Suite 300, Syracuse, NY 13202, Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

SANFORD, HEISLER LLP, OF COUNSEL: AIMEE KRAUSE STEWART, ESQ., 1666 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20009, Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

ONONDAGA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF LAW, OF COUNSEL: CAROL L. RHINEHART, ESQ., John H. Mulroy Civic Center, 421 Montgomery Street, 10th Floor, Syracuse, NY 13202, Attorneys for defendants Eugene Conway, Esteban Gonzalez, and Kevin M. Brisson.

BOND, SCHOENECK LAW FIRM, OF COUNSEL:

236 F.Supp.3d 564

JONATHAN B. FELLOWS, ESQ., One Lincoln Center, Syracuse, NY 13202, Attorneys for defendant Syracuse City School District.

HON. RICHARD S. HARTUNIAN, United States Attorney for the Northern District of New York, OF COUNSEL: JOHN D. HOGGAN, JR., ESQ., Ass't United States Attorney, 445 Broadway, Room 218, Albany, NY 12207.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Civil Rights Division, Special Litigation Section, OF COUNSEL: KYLE SMIDDIE, ESQ., ATTICUS LEE, ESQ., 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20530.

NAACP—CNY CHAPTER LEGAL COMMITTEE, OF COUNSEL: LANESSA L. OWENS, ESQ., Colvin Station, P.O. Box 397, Syracuse, NY 13205, Attorneys for Amici Curiae.

MEMORANDUM—DECISION and ORDER

DAVID N. HURD, United States District Judge

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION....564

II. BACKGROUND....565

A. The Justice Center....566

B. The School District....566

C. Discipline at the Jail....566

D. Education in Solitary Confinement....567

E. Use of Solitary Confinement on Juveniles....567

F. Plaintiffs' Experts....568

1. Dr. Krisberg....568

2. Warden Parker....569

3. Dr. Kraus....570

G. Government's Statement of Interest....571

H. NAACP's Amici Brief....571

III. DISCUSSION....572

A. Class Certification....572

1. Numerosity....573

2. Commonality....574

3. Typicality....576

4. Adequacy of Representation....576

5. Rule 23(b)....577

6. Ascertainability....577

B. Summary Judgment....577

C. Preliminary Injunction....581

1. Substantial Likelihood of Success....581

i. Eighth Amendment....582

ii. Fourteenth Amendment....585

iii. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act....586

2. Strong Showing of Irreparable Harm....588

3. Public Interest....589

4. Balance of Hardships....589

IV. CONCLUSION....589

I. INTRODUCTION

The named plaintiffs¹ seek relief on behalf of themselves and a putative class of fellow 16– and 17–year–olds ("juveniles") being detained at the Onondaga County Justice Center (the "Justice Center" or "Jail") by defendants Onondaga County Sheriff Eugene Conway ("Sheriff Conway"), Chief Custody Deputy Esteban Gonzalez ("Deputy Gonzalez"), and Assistant Chief Custody Deputy Kevin Brisson ("Deputy Brisson") (collectively the "Onondaga County defendants"), each of whom is

236 F.Supp.3d 565

being sued here in their respective official capacities.

First, plaintiffs' class action complaint alleges declaratory and injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 – 02 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is necessary to put an end to the Onondaga County defendants' routine imposition of solitary confinement on juveniles at the Justice Center, a practice which allegedly violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Second, plaintiffs seek class relief against the Onondaga County defendants and defendant Syracuse City School District (the "School District"), which has contracted with the Justice Center to provide educational services, for allegedly denying juveniles in solitary confinement the minimum educational instruction guaranteed by state law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Third, plaintiffs seek relief against both the Onondaga County defendants and the School District (collectively "defendants") on behalf of a subclass of juvenile inmates with disabilities who are allegedly being systematically deprived of the procedural protections and special education services guaranteed to them by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 140 et seq.

The parties have filed three motions: (1) plaintiffs have moved for class certification under FED. R. CIV. P. 23 and (2) a preliminary injunction under FED. R. CIV. P. 65, while the School District has moved for (3) summary judgment under FED. R. CIV. P. 56 on the basis that it is the Onondaga County defendants, not the School District, who bear sole responsibility for any of the constitutional or statutory violations alleged by plaintiffs.

In addition, the United States of America (the "Government") has submitted a statement of interest in this litigation under 28 U.S.C. § 517, and the Central New York Chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (the "NAACP") has moved for leave to appear as amici curiae in support of plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction.

The parties exchanged limited discovery and the three motions were fully briefed, although the Onondaga County defendants did not submit an opposition to plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Oral argument was heard on Wednesday, February 15, 2017 in Utica, New York, where plaintiffs' motion for class certification and the NAACP's motion for leave to appear as amici were granted. Decision was reserved on plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and on the School District's motion for summary judgment.

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs have submitted a mountain of evidence in support of their request for the entry of a preliminary injunction. See Pls.' Mem. Supp. Prelim. Inj., ECF No. 46–33, 7–8 & nn.1–7 (detailing evidentiary submissions).² In response, the Onondaga County defendants have submitted an affidavit from Deputy Gonzalez, ECF No. 62, and the School District has submitted declarations from David Tantillo, ECF No. 28–2, John A. Dittmann, Jr., ECF No. 28–3, and Signe Nelson, ECF No. 28–5.

All of these materials have been considered and the particularly relevant portions will be summarized below. Notably, the parties did not press the need f or an evidentiary hearing at oral argument, and an independent review of the submissions did not reveal any genuine disputes over the essential facts. Matter of Defend H2O v. Town Bd. of the Town of E. Hampton , 147 F.Supp.3d 80, 96–97 (E.D.N.Y. 2015)

236 F.Supp.3d 566

(discussing circumstances where an evidentiary hearing on a preliminary injunction is unnecessary). Accordingly, while a few disputes over factual matters have been noted, their resolution is unnecessary in order to decide the present issues.

A. The Justice Center

Opened in 1995, the Justice Center is a 671–bed correctional facility located in downtown Syracuse, New York and operated by the Onondaga County defendants. It houses pre-trial detainees, convicted individuals serving prison sentences, and technical parole violators. Although its primary function is to hold an adult inmate population, the Jail is also used to house approximately 30 juveniles at any one time. Approximately 90% of these juveniles are pre-trial detainees, though some are already serving sentences.

The Justice Center operates under a "direct supervision" method, which places a single deputy in charge of a "housing pod" of 32 to 60 inmates. Juvenile inmates are typically housed in Pod 2A or 5A and, as a general matter, have access to "television, commissary, law library, a quest room or mini library, telephones, recreation, religious services, various programs including education, and visitation, which may include two one-hour contact visits per week." Gonzalez Aff. ¶¶ 9–12.

...