Wright v. N.Y.S. Dep't of Corr. & Cmty. Supervision
| Decision Date | 10 March 2017 |
| Docket Number | 9:13–CV–0564 (MAD/ATB) |
| Parties | Nathaniel WRIGHT, Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION; Anthony Annucci, Acting Commissioner of DOCCS; and Superintendent Darwin LaClair, Franklin Correctional Facility, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York |
LEGAL SERVICES OF CENTRAL NEW YORK—SYRACUSE, OF COUNSEL: SAMUEL C. YOUNG, ESQ., JOSHUA T. COTTER, ESQ., 472 South Salina Street, Suite 300, Syracuse, New York 13202, Attorneys for Plaintiff.
OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL, OF COUNSEL: JOSHUA E. McMAHON, ESQ., JAMES J. SEAMAN, ESQ., The Capitol, Albany, New York 12224, Attorneys for Defendants.
I. INTRODUCTION
On May 15, 2013, Plaintiff Nathaniel Wright ("Plaintiff" or "Wright"), an inmate in the custody of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision ("DOCCS"), filed this action under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act ("RA") seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against DOCCS, Commissioner Anthony Annucci ("Annucci"), and Superintendent Darwin LaClair ("LaClair") ("Defendants"). Dkt. Nos. 1, 28.
The Court held a bench trial on February 13, 2017 through February 15, 2017. At the close of the trial, Defendants moved pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50 for judgment as a matter of law as to all claims. Plaintiff opposed the motion and cross moved pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 52 for findings and conclusions by the Court or, in the alternative, for a preliminary injunction. The motions were denied.
Having reviewed the parties' pre-trial submissions, the trial transcript, and post-trial submissions, the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.
II. FINDINGS OF FACT1
1. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the instant claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Dkt. No. 114, The basis of federal jurisdiction, ¶ 1.
2. Plaintiff was born with cerebral palsy
and scoliosis, and used a motorized wheelchair for approximately 15 years prior to his incarceration. Dkt. No. 114, Relevant Facts Not in Dispute, ¶ 1. Plaintiff's legs are severely deformed and he has had over fourteen operations on his legs to improve their functioning. Id. , ¶ 2, 3. Plaintiff also suffers from a torn rotator cuff. Transcript of Trial ("Tr.") at 12.
3. DOCCS did not have a written policy or directive banning the use of motorized wheelchairs; rather it was a system wide practice put into place by staff. Dkt. No. 114, Relevant Facts Not in Dispute, ¶ 82. Thirty states and the Federal Bureau of Prisons consider allowing motorized wheelchairs as a reasonable accommodation. Id. , ¶ 127.
4. Plaintiff received his motorized wheelchair after he applied and was approved by the New York State Medicaid program. Dkt. No. 114, Relevant Facts Not in Dispute, ¶ 4. With the use of his motorized wheelchair Plaintiff was able to live an independent and self-sufficient life with his fiancée in Rochester, NY. Id. , ¶ 5.
5. Plaintiff's motorized wheelchair is the Invacare Torque III. Tr. at 178; Joint Exhibit ("Jt. Exh.") 17. The batteries in the wheelchair weigh fifty-one pounds each and are sealed and bolted beneath a metal plate. Id. at 181. Some hardware, including the armrest, seat, and headrest, are removable. Id. at 187. The motorized wheelchair weighs between 228 and 258 pounds and can achieve a maximum speed of 5.8 miles per hour. Id. at 192. The speed may be adjusted downward and the wheelchair should not be operated on an incline greater than nine percent. Tr. at 145, 192. The wheelchair must be charged with a cord that is approximately twelve feet in length. Id. at 146. The wheelchair also contains polyurethane foam. Id. at 152.
6. In April 2012, Plaintiff was incarcerated at the Monroe C.J. Dkt. No. 114, Relevant Facts Not in Dispute, ¶ 6. During the five months he served at the Monroe C.J., Plaintiff used his motorized wheelchair in general population, without incident. Id. , ¶ 7.
7. In October of 2012, Plaintiff re-entered DOCCS' custody when he was transferred from the Monroe C.J. to Elmira C.F. Dkt. No. 114, Relevant Facts Not in Dispute, ¶ 8. On October 12, 2012, Plaintiff received a medical permit to use his motorized wheelchair. Jt. Exh. 22. Plaintiff used his motorized wheelchair within the confines of the second floor infirmary and never entered general population. Dkt. No. 114, Relevant Facts Not in Dispute, ¶ 10. Plaintiff did not misuse or tamper with his motorized wheelchair while at Elmira C.F. Id., ¶ 11. Plaintiff was also able to ambulate with a cane and to propel himself short distances in a manual wheelchair
. Id. , ¶ 12.
8. After approximately one week at Elmira C.F., Plaintiff was transferred to Marcy C.F. Dkt. No. 114, Relevant Facts Not in Dispute, ¶ 13. Plaintiff was told by a sergeant that he could not have his motorized wheelchair because it posed a security risk. Tr. at 19. Plaintiff was advised to "grieve" the issue. Id. Plaintiff received a manual wheelchair
and was allowed to remove the customized chair cushion from his motorized wheelchair for use in the manual wheelchair. Id. at 26; Dkt. No. 114, Relevant Facts Not in Dispute, ¶ 15. Plaintiff was provided with pads for his knees and assigned a wheelchair accessible living space. Dkt. No. 114, Relevant Facts Not in Dispute, ¶ 16, 17.
9. Plaintiff received assistance from the Inmate Mobility Assistance Program ("IMAP") to help him travel within the facility. Dkt. No. 114, Relevant Facts Not in Dispute, ¶ 14. At Marcy C.F., the IMAP is a paid job program for inmates. Tr. at 336. At the relevant time, there were twenty-five to thirty mobility assistants housed and assigned to the same dormitory as the inmates who required assistance. Id. at 337, 338. Generally, when the inmates were scheduled to attend programs, the mobility assistant would move the wheelchair-bound inmate to school, counseling, or vocation. Id. Once the inmate arrived at the program, the mobility assistant would leave and return to the dormitory where he may pick up another mobility impaired inmate to transport to programs. Id. at 338. When programs ended, the assistant would return to the area and push the wheelchair inmate back to the dorm. Tr. at 337–38. A mobility-impaired inmate may be aided by different assistants over the course of a day. Id. at 338.
10. On October 29, 2012, three days after his arrival at Marcy C.F., Plaintiff filed a grievance seeking "reasonable accommodations needed to get around the facility i.e., my motorized wheelchair." Dkt. No. 114, Relevant Facts Not in Dispute, ¶ 22; Jt. Exh. 2.
11. On November 27, 2012, the Superintendent of Marcy C.F. Charles F. Kelly ("Kelly") denied the grievance explaining that, "the possession/use of a motorized wheelchair in a correctional setting includes numerous safety & security issues, Departmental policy is to preclude the use of such items by offenders." Dkt. No. 114, Relevant Facts Not in Dispute, ¶ 23; Jt. Exh. 2; Tr. at 305–307.
12. Plaintiff appealed Kelly's determination to the Inmate Grievance Program Central Office Review Committee ("CORC"). Dkt. No. 114, Relevant Facts Not in Dispute, ¶ 26; Jt. Exh. 2. On May 1, 2013, CORC denied Plaintiff's appeal finding that Plaintiff was issued a properly fitting manual wheelchair with a chair cushion, an egg crate mattress, and quad cane. Dkt. No. 114, Relevant Facts Not in Dispute, ¶ 27–28; Jt. Exh. 2. CORC noted that, "[r]easonable accommodations include being assigned another inmate who is programmed as a mobility aide to assist him with daily living activities and movement within the facility." Id. CORC also addressed "legitimate security concerns regarding the strength of the battery, massive amount of wiring, etc." Id.13. Plaintiff was advised to "address medical concerns via sick call." Dkt. No. 114, Relevant Facts Not in Dispute, ¶ 27–28. From December 8, 2012 through April 8, 2013, Plaintiff did not request sick call. Id. , ¶ 30; Jt. Exh. 7.
14. On March 17, 2013, Plaintiff wrote a letter to the "medical staff" at Marcy C.F. advising that, "just because I don't come to sick call does not mean that I'm not in pain." Jt. Exh. 7.
15. In February 2013 and August 2013, Plaintiff filed grievances requesting use of his motorized wheelchair. Jt. Exhs. 3, 4; Tr. at 21, 310. Plaintiff complained that, "using a non-fitted manual wheelchair is painful for me, pusher or not[.]" Jt. Exh. 3. Kelly denied the grievances. Jt. Exhs. 3, 4.
16. Plaintiff did not formally complain or file grievances about the IMAP at Marcy C.F. Tr. at 25, 340.
17. On January 23, 2014, Plaintiff was transferred to Franklin C.F. Dkt. No. 114, Relevant Facts Not in Dispute, ¶ 37. Plaintiff was denied the use of his motorized wheelchair at Franklin C.F. Id. , ¶ 38. Plaintiff continued to use a manual wheelchair, with his custom chair cushion, and was provided access to the IMAP. Id. , ¶ 38, 39. Plaintiff was assigned to a wheelchair-accessible cubicle located closest to a wheelchair-accessible bathroom. Id. , ¶ 40.
18. The Franklin C.F. Facility Operations Manual 300 ("FOM 300") defines mobility assistants as, "[a]n inmate who is specifically trained and programmed to assist a mobility impaired inmate by pushing a wheelchair and/or aiding that inmate with daily living skills." Jt. Exh. 21. FOM 300 further provides:
Mobility impaired inmates have the option of requesting assistance of a mobility assistant to move from one place to another or to transport themselves. If assistance is needed, the mobility impaired inmates must notify their Housing Unit Officers well in advance and advise them as to what degree of assistance is needed.
Id....
To continue reading
Request your trial