Williamson v. Maciol

• Decision Date: 03 August 2020
• Docket Number: 9:20-CV-537 (MAD/DJS)
• Parties: NICOLE WILLIAMSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ROBERT MACIOL, Oneida County Sheriff, and LISA ZUREK, Chief Deputy Oneida County Jail, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York

NICOLE WILLIAMSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ROBERT MACIOL, Oneida County Sheriff, andLISA ZUREK, Chief Deputy Oneida County Jail, Defendants.

9:20-CV-537 (MAD/DJS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

August 3, 2020

APPEARANCES:

LEGAL SERVICES OF

CENTRAL NEW YORK

221 South Warren Street

Suite 300

Syracuse, New York 13202

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

KENNEY SHELTON LIPTAK

NOWAK LLP

4615 North Street

Jamesville, New York 13078

Attorneys for Defendants

OF COUNSEL:

JOSHUA T. COTTER, ESQ.

SAMUEL C. YOUNG, ESQ.

MAURIE G. HEINS, ESQ.

SARA ADAMS, ESQ.

DAVID H. WALSH, IV, ESQ.

DANIEL CARTWRIGHT, ESQ.

Mae A. D'Agostino, U.S. District Judge:

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs Nicole Williamson, Sarah Barrett, and Shannon Terrell (collectively "Plaintiffs"), on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, bring this action for alleged violations of their rights to Equal Protection under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution (Count I), and violations of their rights under Article I, § 11 of the New York State Constitution (Count II). See Dkt. No. 1 at ¶¶ 63-64. On May 21, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a motion for an order certifying this proceeding as a class action. See Dkt. No. 10. On June 10, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking an order requiring Defendants Robert Maciol and Lisa Zurek (collectively "Defendants") to transfer Plaintiffs to a less restrictive podular style housing unit and providing Plaintiffs with substantially equivalent privileges and benefits to those provided to their male equivalents. See Dkt. No. 18. Defendants do not oppose Plaintiffs' motion for certification of the class, see Dkt. No. 22, but do oppose Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. See Dkt. No. 23-4.

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs are currently housed at the Oneida County Jail, which is a correctional facility located in Oriskany, New York. See Dkt. No. 18-3 at 2. The Oneida County Jail is approximately two-hundred years old, and is comprised of various housing units. See Dkt. No. 23-2 at 3. As of June 17, 2020, the Oneida County Jail held 228 inmates, comprising of 202 males and 26 females. See id. at 2.

All inmates are classified as either "general custody" or "closed custody." See id. In determining an inmate's security classification, the Oneida County Jail assigns points based on an inmate's present charge(s), criminal history, legal status, incarceration status, disciplinary record and the severity of that record, as well as the inmate's mental health, disabilities, suicide attempts, propensity for violence, and vulnerability. See Dkt. No. 18-3 at 70. Inmates who score between one and ten points are classified as general custody, and inmates who score above ten points are classified as closed custody. See id. Closed custody inmates receive only the minimum privileges required by the New York State Minimum Standards, and general custody inmates receive all privileges as set forth by facility rules and regulations. See id. at 70-71.

Of particular importance to Plaintiffs' claims are the housing units at the Oneida County Jail, namely, the "podular units" ("pods") and "linear housing units." Id. at 3. A pod contains fifty-six individual cells, and the cells surround a central common area with benches and tables. See id. Each cell in the pods is approximately eight feet by ten feet in size, equipped with a bed, toilet, sink, desk, and chair, and has a clear glass window facing outside that is approximately one foot by three feet in size. See id. Each pod has seven telephones and eight showers for inmates to access. See id. There is a recreation unit attached to the pods. See Dkt. No. 18-2 at 9, 15. Inmates housed in pods also have access to two cable televisions, a room containing games and books, videophone equipment, a water cooler with hot and cold water, a microwave, and air conditioning. See id. at 9-11.

The linear housing units contain cells that are approximately five feet by seven feet in size, equipped with a bed, toilet, sink with hot and cold running water, have bars in front of the cells, and contain no windows. See Dkt. No. 23-2 at 3. H-Block consists of forty linear cells (with twenty cells on each side) and C-Block consists of thirty-two cells (sixteen on each side). See id. The cell blocks have an inner and outer catwalk. See id. at 4. Each cell block has one shower and one telephone. See id. at 3.¹ Inmates housed in the linear housing units have access to one television with DVDs and movies, video tablets, a cabinet with games and books, water, fans, and access to a recreation area. See Dkt. No. 23-2 at 6-9. There have been plumbing incidents in both blocks, including toilet water flooding the unit. See Dkt. No. 18-2 at 9-10.

In addition to housing, Plaintiffs' claims involve the benefits and privileges that the general custody women receive. These benefits and privileges include, but are not limited to, recreation time, televisions, library access, digital tablets, the ability to cook food, water coolers, air conditioners, work assignments, and trustee status. See Dkt. No. 18-5 at 9-11; Dkt. No. 23-4 at 4-5.

Prior to January 2020, all female inmates were housed in a single pod unit. See Dkt. No. 23-2 at 4. In October 2019, the Commission of Correction completed its yearly "Minimum Standard Evaluation" of the Oneida County Jail. See id. at 4, 15-18. The Commission reviewed the classification standards, and required action to be taken because all female inmates were "housed together on the same unit regardless of classification level." Id. at 15. In January 2020, all female inmates were moved to linear housing units and separated based on classification. See id. at 5. At that time, thirteen women were classified as general custody and fifteen were classified as closed custody. See id. at 2. General custody women were moved to H-Block (Henry Right), and closed custody women were moved to H-Block (Henry Left); in April 2020, the entire unit was moved to C-Block. See id.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Class Certification

"A district court enjoys broad discretion when it comes to resolving questions of class certification because it 'is often in the best position to assess the propriety of the class and has the ability . . . to alter or modify the class, create subclasses, and decertify the class whenever warranted.'" V.W. by and through Williams v. Conway, 236 F. Supp. 3d 554, 572 (N.D.N.Y. 2017) (quoting Sumitomo Copper Litig. v. Credit Lyonnais Rouse, Ltd., 262 F.3d 134, 139 (2d Cir. 2001) (collecting cases)).

"'In evaluating a motion for class certification, the district court is required to make a "definitive assessment of Rule 23 requirements, notwithstanding their overlap with merits issues," and must resolve material factual disputes relevant to each Rule 23 requirement.'" Brown v. Kelly, 609 F.3d 467, 476 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting In re Initial Pub. Offerings Sec. Litig., 471 F.3d 24, 41 (2d Cir. 2006)). Rule 23 sets forth four requirements for class certification:

(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) questions of law and fact are common to the class, (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims of defenses of the class, and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). "A party seeking class certification must affirmatively demonstrate [its] compliance with the Rule." Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 351 (2011) ("Rule 23 does not set forth a mere pleading standard").

"To certify a class seeking injunctive relief under Rule 23(b)(2), Plaintiffs must also show Defendants have 'acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.' Plaintiffs must establish each of these facts by at least a preponderance of the evidence." J.B. v. Onondaga Cnty., 401 F. Supp. 3d 320, 330 (N.D.N.Y. 2019) (quoting Brown, 609 F.3d at 476).

Additionally, "courts have written a third, 'implied requirement' into the Rule: a party seeking certification must demonstrate that the proposed class is 'ascertainable.'" V.W., 236 F. Supp. 3d at 573 (quoting Sykes v. Mel Harris & Assocs., LLC, 285 F.R.D. 279, 287 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)). "Under this additional element, '[a]n identifiable class exists if its members can be ascertained by reference to objective criteria.'" Id. (quoting Stinson v. City of N.Y., 282 F.R.D. 360, 367 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)).

"In sum, '[c]lass certification is appropriate where the proposed class meets, by a preponderance of the evidence following a court's "rigorous analysis," the requirements of Rule 23(a) and the proposed class constitutes one of the types of classes enumerated in Rule 23(b).'" V.W., 236 F. Supp. 3d at 573 (quoting Stinson, 282 F.R.D. at 367).

Plaintiffs seek to certify a class composed of "all female inmates who are, or should be, classified as 'general custody' and who are now, or will be, incarcerated at the Oneida County Jail." Dkt. No. 10-1 at ¶ 7. Defendants do not oppose the motion for certification of the class. Dkt. No. 22. Nevertheless, because a party seeking class certification must affirmatively demonstrate compliance with the requirements of Rule 23, the relevant findings are based on Plaintiffs' submissions in support of this motion and are set forth below.

1. Numerosity

The first element of certification under Rule 23 requires Plaintiffs to demonstrate that "the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1). This inquiry is "not strictly mathematical" but rather requires a court to

take into account the context of the particular case, in particular whether a class is superior to joinder based on other relevant factors including: (i) judicial economy, (ii) geographic dispersion, (iii) the financial resources of

...