V.W. v. Conway

Citation236 F.Supp.3d 554
Decision Date22 February 2017
Docket Number9:16–CV–1150
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.
CourtUnited States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of New York

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:

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

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 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)(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.

B. The School District

The School District bears primary responsibility for educating eligible inmates housed at the Justice Center in accordance with New York State law as well as for ensuring that juveniles with qualifying disabilities receive the special education services and other procedural protections to which they are entitled under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA").

To effect these responsibilities, the School District operates an " Incarcerated Education Program" at the Justice Center, which is staffed by 16 certified general education teachers, 4 certified special education teachers, and 1 school psychologist. According to School District personnel, new juvenile inmates who arrive at the Jail are screened with a basic educational assessment test and a disability questionnaire.

Beginning in 2013, the School District and the Onondag a County defendants entered into a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") intended to lay out the mechanics of how the School District's education program would operate inside the Justice Center. Under the MOU, the School District agreed to administer and supervise the required educational programming and, in turn, the Onondaga County defendants agreed to assume responsibility for security matters and to provide School District personnel with access to appropriate space for classroom instruction. The parties recently extended the MOU through June...

To continue reading

Request your trial
34 cases
  • Gordon v. Maesaka-Hirata, SCWC-14-0000914
    • United States
    • Hawaii Supreme Court
    • 2 Noviembre 2018
    ...official defendants in that case. Finally, the last supplemental authority cited by Gordon, V.W. by and through Williams v. Conway, 236 F.Supp.3d 554 (N.D.N.Y. 2017), ruled that summary judgment had improperly been granted in favor of a school district in a purported class action brought on......
  • Onosamba-Ohindo v. Barr, 1:20-CV-00290 EAW
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of New York
    • 2 Septiembre 2020
    ...is usually met irrespective of minor variations in the fact patterns underlying individual claims."); V.W. ex rel. Williams v. Conway , 236 F. Supp. 3d 554, 576 (N.D.N.Y. 2017) (typicality requirement satisfied because the claims of the class representatives and the members of the class and......
  • J.B. v. Onondaga Cnty.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York
    • 12 Agosto 2019
    ...solitary confinement, which denied them access to educational entitlements, as unconstitutional); V.W. by & through Williams v. Conway, 236 F. Supp. 3d 554, 572 (N.D.N.Y. 2017) (" Conway") (same). Likewise, Plaintiffs meet all five requirements.i. Numerosity First, the class is numerous eno......
  • Hulett v. City of Fowler, 5:14-CV-152.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York
    • 30 Mayo 2017
    ...a plaintiff's serious medical needs has been analyzed under a two-pronged standard. See V.W. by & through Willams v. Conway, 236 F.Supp.3d 554, 582-83, 2017 WL 696808, at *18 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2017). The first prong of this standard was objective: "the alleged deprivation of adequate medic......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • The New Restatement of Children and the Law: Legal Childhood in the Twenty-First Century
    • United States
    • ABA General Library Family Law Quarterly No. 54-2, July 2020
    • 1 Julio 2020
    ...programs are as or more effective at reducing recidivism in young 51. See id . at 241–42; see, e.g. , V.W. ex rel. Williams v. Conway, 236 F. Supp. 3d 554, 583–84 (N.D.N.Y. 2017) (citing Supreme Court sentencing opinions in granting preliminary injunction against use of solitary coninement ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT