Filed Date: Aug. 18, 2011
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
On August 18, 2011, a class of incarcerated people filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for cruel and unusual punishment against the New York City Department of Corrections (DOC). The plaintiffs, represented by the Legal Aid Society and Emery Celli, asked the court for declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and damages, claiming that DOC officers routinely inflicted wanton physical violence on prisoners and deliberately falsified records to prevent discovery of their illegal actions.
Claims against the New York City DOC have been numerous and often successful over the past twenty-five years (Fisher v. Koehler, Reynolds v. Ward, Jackson v. Montemango, Sheppard v. Phoenix, Ingles v. Toro). The plaintiffs claimed that former policies were re-instituted as soon as the injunctions expired, or that the injunctions were interpreted narrowly enough to provide room for explicit cruelty. The plaintiffs claimed that officers frequently took prisoners to areas without video cameras or other witnesses, and then beat them. The plaintiffs claimed to have suffered multiple injuries as a result of these abuses, including broken bones, concussions, and other emergency conditions requiring hospitalization and surgery. Finally, the plaintiffs claimed that the defendants routinely falsified documents or fabricated disciplinary charges to cover up their own unlawful conduct or that of their colleagues. The city often would allegedly promote the worst offenders.
On January 7, 2013, the Court (Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV) granted class certification to the plaintiffs, defining the class as: all present and future inmates confined in jails operated by the New York City DOC, except for the Elmhurst and Bellevue Prison Wards.
Meanwhile, on January 12, 2012, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York informed the city that they were undertaking an investigation of the prison conditions on Rikers Island under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act. The DOJ issued a findings letter in that matter, reporting the frequent use of excessive force, inadequate systematic supervision, and prolonged punitive solitary confinement on August 4, 2014. A press release is available on the Department of Justice's website. That is discussed in the CRIPA investigation page.
On December 18, 2014, the Department of Justice filed a motion seeking permission to intervene in this case and pursue its action under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act. The Court granted the unopposed motion to intervene on December 23, 2014. Settlement negotiations were immediately initiated.
On July 1, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion to approve a consent settlement. The DOJ issued a statement on their website the same day. The consent settlement included provisions completely prohibiting certain types of force. The DOC also agreed to report all incidents where the staff used force on a prisoner. All Use of Force incidents resulting in major injuries to the prisoner resulted in a mandatory video-recorded interview of the injured prisoner and other witnesses, and referred for an investigation to the Investigation Division of the DOC. The DOC agreed to install 7,800 wall-mounted cameras and at least 100 body-worn or hand-held cameras to facilitate the investigations. Staff that violate the use of force guidelines will be disciplined, up to termination. Staff could not be promoted if they had a poor disciplinary use of force record or a pending disciplinary investigation.
The DOC agreed to no longer put prisoners under 18 in any punitive isolation. Prisons housing youth were required to have certain staffing levels and routine examination of the premises to ensure security and safety of the prisoners. The DOC also agreed to begin searching for an alternative location, off Rikers Island, for prisoners under 18.
Finally, the parties agreed to a monitor, who visited the prisons and wrote a progress report every four months, penologist Steve Martin.
On October 21, 2015, the Court (Judge Laura Taylor Swain) approved the consent judgment and implementation began, enforced by the court.
On December 4, 2019, Judge Swain issued an order and modified the consent judgment, adding "[a]ny Board employee who witnesses a Use of Force Incident must report the incident in writing directly to the area Tour Commander or to a supervisor who is responsible for investigating the incident. This shall include, but not be limited to, filling out the narrative section of any witness report."
The monitor's ninth report raised concerns about the defendants' efforts to advance reforms and the treatment of 16 and 17 year olds. The report raised non-compliance issues with "(1) implementing the Use of Force Directive; (2) addressing the backlog of investigations and improving use of force investigations going forward; (3) improving Staff discipline and accountability; and (4) addressing the high level of disorder at RNDC, where most of the 18-year-old inmates are housed."
In response to the issues raised in the ninth monitor report, the court ordered the Monitoring Team to file a status report by July 2, 2020. This report from the monitor outlined the progress that the parties had made and indicated that the parties "are in a position to reach a joint agreement." In this report, the monitor noted that the parties have not decided how to treat 16 and 17 year olds in compliance with the terms of the consent judgment and new legislation in New York that created a new legal status for 16 and 17 year olds arrested for felonies. After the monitor filed this status report, the court urged the parties to continue to work towards a finalized joint proposal.
On August 14, 2020, the court issued a remedial consent order addressing the defendants' non-compliance on use of force. The order instructed Facility Wardens to promptly review all incidents involving use of force to determine if any corrective action was warranted. Among other changes to the consent decree, this remedial order instructed the defendants to take immediate corrective actions to determine whether any staff members "should be subject to immediate corrective action pending the completion of the use of force investigation."
The Tenth Monitoring Report and Eleventh Monitoring Reports expressed similar concerns as prior reports by noting that "[t]he City and Department have established a record of non-compliance in the most fundamental goals of the Consent Judgment, most especially regarding the use of force and accountability for violations of these requirements."
Meanwhile, the monitor began filing status reports about the remedial order from August 14, 2020. The First Remedial Report, issued on December 8, 2020, noted that investigations into use of force had begun, but little corrective action had been taken. The Second Report, issued on June 3, 2021, focused on "problem-solving efforts designed to advance the overall reform."
On August 24, 2021, the Monitoring Team filed a letter to Judge Swain advising the court of the Team's "grave concerns about the conditions and pervasive high level of disorder and chaos in the New York City jails." The letter stated that the conditions in the jails have deteriorated from the dismal state reported in previous monitoring reports, resulting in a steady increase in serious use of force incidents, a rise in the level of security lapses and unchecked breaches, and instances of inadequate supervision. Judge Swain endorsed the report the following day, finding it “deeply disturbing.”
Judge Swain issued a Second Remedial Order on September 29, 2021, which adopted the recommendations of the Monitoring Team, which included obligations to: address unsecured doors; communicate their obligations under the Suicide Prevention Policy; assign incarcerated people to housing within 24 hours of their intake; maintain video monitoring; hire a consultant to advise on safely housing people in consideration of gang affiliation; expand criteria for who may serve on facility leadership teams; and appoint an external Security Operations Manager.
In response to a Monitoring Report submitted on September 30, 2021, which documented over 1,900 pending disciplinary cases related to use of force violations including 600 cases involving conduct that occurred over three years prior, Judge Swain issued a Third Remedial Order on November 22, 2021. The court ordered the Trials Division to select at least 400 cases to be prioritized for expeditious resolution and increased the number of pre-trial conferences the defendants must hold each month. The defendants were also ordered to improve procedures to allow for more timely review and increase staffing for the Trials Division. On June 14, 2022, the court approved the defendants' proposed action plan to address the issues identified in this lawsuit, including staffing, supervision, and security concerns.
The plaintiffs requested appointment of a federal receiver on November 14, 2022, citing 18 deaths on Rikers Island in the prior year, in addition to several other grave concerns. Judge Swain denied this request on November 21, 2022 and referenced her comments from an earlier hearing in which she stated that the defendants needed more time to comply with recent court orders.
On December 5, 2022, Judge Swain adopted the Monitoring Team’s recommendation to abolish the position of Warden and ordered the defendants to establish a new Facility Supervisor role and expand the criteria for application to allow applicants from outside the department.
On December 13, 2022, the court ordered the defendants to file a status update outlining the steps being taken to comply with the court’s Second Remedial Order. On January 10, 2023, the defendants filed their status report, which detailed improvements in the intake process for new admissions and changes in the Inmate Tracking System for transfers. As a result, defendants argued there was no basis for plaintiffs’ contemplated contempt motion. Nonetheless, plaintiffs filed their motion on January 25, 2023, arguing that the defendants had failed to properly track intake and transfers.
Later that year, on February 3, the parties informed the court they had reached a revised agreement about 16- and 17-year-olds at Horizon Juvenile Center, which would extend through June 30, 2023. Under the new agreement, the monitor would file two public reports, and if the monitor found that the defendants made good faith efforts to comply with the consent decree, the parties would agree to exclude incarcerated adolescents from the consent decree. Over the next few years, the parties continued to extend the end date of this agreement.
On March 13, 2023, the court denied without prejudice plaintiffs’ motion to hold defendants in civil contempt because the defendants had recently made changes to try to address the issues raised by the plaintiffs. Therefore, the court instead ordered the defendants to file status reports on their continued effort to comply.
Two months later, on May 26, the monitor filed a report detailing five recent “disturbing incidents involving harm to incarcerated persons” that revealed dangerous conditions, unsafe practices, and a lack of transparency from the defendants. A few days later, the court ordered the defendants to provide more information in response to the report. A few weeks later, the court ordered the defendants to produce a plan of action addressing these incidents, including appointing a manager to interface with the monitor, and ordered the monitor to file a status report about the sufficiency of the plan.
On July 10, 2023, the monitor filed a report explaining that the defendants were not properly communicating with the Monitoring Team and that there had been “regression” in carrying out the overall remedial plan. The following week, the court ordered defendants to explain what steps they planned to take to address security and harm, supervision and training, and consultation and collaboration.
On August 10, 2023, the court ordered the defendants to implement several steps by the end of the year in response to ongoing problems identified by the monitor. These steps included establishing data about use of force, changing search and escort procedures and security protocols, and creating new policies involving training and supervision.
Two months later, after a monitor’s report that described worsening conditions surrounding security, staffing, and incident reporting, the court ordered the defendants to meet with the monitor to create an immediate plan to “ameliorate the unacceptable levels of harm in the New York City jails.”
Later that year, on November 15, the monitor wrote a letter to the court alleging that the defendants had opened and operated a new specialized housing unit without consulting the monitor, in violation of the court’s orders. The next day, the court ordered the defendants to explain why it should not hold them in contempt for this violation as well as their overall lack of transparency. The following day, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a contempt order and asked the court to appoint a receiver to oversee the Department of Correction and ensure compliance with the consent decree. The plaintiffs detailed how, after eight years, the defendants had failed to remedy the violations, making a receiver necessary to comply with the prospective relief. Various organizations filed amicus briefs in support of a receivership, including the New York Attorney General’s Office.
The following month, on December 8, the mayor of New York City appointed a new commissioner of the Department of Correction.
About a week later, on December 14, the court found the defendants in contempt, and explained that the defendants could purge the contempt order if they took various steps to implement the court’s orders and communicate with the monitor. The following day, the court also ordered the defendants to create a new policy for incident reporting.
In early February 2024, New York Mayor Eric Adams issued an executive order to “prioritize compliance” with the 2022 action plan and address staffing levels, conditions and health operations at Department of Correction facilities. A February 26 Status Report by the Monitoring Team recorded “early signs of improved transparency and collaboration” in the months since the appointment of the new Commissioner of the Department of Correction. A day later, Judge Swain found that the defendants were no longer in contempt.
On March 19, the city and the Department of Correction filed its response brief to the plaintiff’s contempt order. They argued that the defendants were not in contempt of any of the court’s orders, and that a receivership was an “unwarranted” measure in light of the circumstances following new leadership. In September 2024, Judge Swain ordered the parties to develop a proposal for an outside authority to oversee the facilities, and streamline the “myriad requirements" across the case’s court orders, within 45 days.
On October 15, 2024, in response to one the class members’ trial subpoena for the Deputy Monitor to offer testimony in a separate § 1983 case, Colson v. Mingo, against the DOC, Judge Swain issued an order clarifying that all the restrictions on the Monitor in the consent judgment also bound the Deputy Monitor. As a result, the Court did not authorize the Deputy Monitor to testify in the separate case.
On November 14, 2024 the same class member who attempted to subpoena testimony from the Deputy Monitor filed a notice of appeal regarding the court’s October 15, 2024 order with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In that case, (Case No. 24-3055) the appellant class member filed a motion to expedite his appeal on December 4 of that year, and the DOC filed a motion to dismiss the next day.
On December 17, 2024, the appellate court denied the appellant’s motion to expedite his appeal without prejudice, should the circumstances change regarding the underlying dispositive motion and trial date in the Mingo case. Two days later, the appellant submitted a letter to the circuit court regarding the trial date. On Jan 24, 2025, appellant filed another motion to expedite his appeal. It was granted by the court on February 6, 2025. On March 28, 2025, appellee City of New York submitted a Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 28(j) letter to the court to have the case dismissed as moot. After having both parties file letters regarding whether or not the appeal should be dismissed in light of the 28(j) letter on April 8, 2025, the appellate court then dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction on April 30, 2025. 2025 WL 1248983.
At the end of November 2024, Judge Swain held the defendants in contempt, finding they had violated eighteen provisions of four courts orders by failing to: “(1) implement the use of force directive; (2) conduct adequate use of force investigations and hold staff accountable; (3) remedy failures in security and basic correctional practice; (4) adequately supervise staff and facility leadership; (5) effectively deploy uniform staff to adequately supervise incarcerated individuals; (6) curb the Emergency Response Teams’ excesses; and (7) ensure the safety of young people in custody.” She included an account of dire conditions in jails, excessive rates of use of force, and high number of deaths of people in custody. Judge Swain stated she was inclined to impose a receivership, so the management of use of force and safety conditions in Rikers Island jail would be directly answerable to the Court. 758 F. Supp. 3d 190.
On May 13, 2025, the court issued an order and opinion rejecting both parties' remedial proposals, developed in response to a September 2024 court order, and implementing its own hybrid approach. The court appointed an independent Nunez Remediation Manager with broad powers to remedy defendants' contempt and support compliance with court orders. The Manager was required to develop a Remediation Action Plan within 90 days to achieve substantial compliance with the contempt provisions in the consent judgment within three years, working collaboratively with the current Commissioner of the New York City Department of Correction. The court found defendants' proposal insufficient to establish independence and transformational change, while plaintiffs' proposal lacked adequate collaboration structure and transition planning. Consequently, the judge ordered the case to proceed under the authority of the Nunez Remediation Manager and parties were required to provide four candidate recommendations by August 29, 2025. The Manager's authority would gradually transition back to defendants as substantial compliance is achieved and sustained. 782 F. Supp. 3d 146.
Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s May 13th order appointing a Remediation Manager on June 27, 2025. In the status report submitted on June 30, defendants filed a letter stating that they intended to move for a temporary restraining order pending a hearing on a preliminary injunction to certain aspects of New York City Local Law 42 of 2024 in New York State Court. Their attached exhibit, a state court decision regarding the executive orders staying of Local Law 42, revealed that the law was a statute banning solitary confinement in the city, and mayor Eric Adams had used his emergency powers to suspend parts of it in anticipation of its effective date.
Defendants filed a motion for preliminary injunction, temporary restraining order, and declaratory relief regarding Local Law 42 on July 2, 2025. The application for a temporary restraining order was heard and granted in the district court that same day. Judge Swain reasoned that there was a substantial likelihood that Defendants will prevail on the merits of the motion, defendants, class members and non-parties were likely to suffer irreparable harm if the conflict provisions of Local Law 42 were allowed to go in effect, and that the requirements for prospective relief under the Prison Litigation Reform Act had been met. As a result, the legal effect of the conflict provisions were stayed until further order of the court.
On July 11, 2025, the defendants filed a notice of interlocutory appeal of the order and opinion appointing an independent Nunez Remediation Manager in the Second Circuit (Case No. 25-1723). On July 25, 2025, the New York City Council filed an unopposed motion to intervene to defend Local Law 42 which the district court granted three days later. After modifying the definition of conflicts provisions present in the first restraining order, the court issued an amended temporary restraining order reflecting these modifications on August 19, 2025.
On October 16, 2025, the court issued an order denying defendants’ motion for reconsideration in its entirety. In its opinion, it explained that defendants had achieved partial compliance with ten of the eighteen contempt provisions in the Monitor's 19th report, which was an improvement, but it was not enough for reconsideration of the appointment of the Remediation Manager because it had not fully remedied constitutional violations or eliminate the need for oversight given the cycle of small progress followed by regression" over the past decade. Accordingly, the Remediation Manager stayed in place. Nunez v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Corr., No. 11-CV-5845-LTS-RWL, 2025 LX 406081 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 16, 2025). Five days later, on October 21, the court issued a second amended temporary restraining order. The order mostly corrected errors on the first amended order and made clear that the orders stay, and the related “no duty to comply” and “no enforcement” directives reach the emergency lock-in public-notice provision, the provision requiring the department to immediately provide public notice on its website of an emergency lock-in and related restrictions.
On November 13, 2025, the Second Circuit, addressing and granting the interlocutory appeal in accordance with U.S. v. Jacobson, remanded the case and directed the district court to make additional findings or clarify the record regarding the issue at controversy while retaining the ability to reactivate the appeal upon notification that the district court completed its directives. 2025 WL 4053408.
Judge Swain issued a stipulation order regarding the 16 and 17-year-old adolescent offenders on December 9, 2025. The order explained that the consent judgment did not apply to the adolescent offenders going forward, but also clarified that the order did not impact the consent judgment’s applicability to any plaintiff class member who was not an adolescent offender.
In response to both parties’ objections to the initial appointment order from May 15, 2025, the district court issued an opinion and order concerning the revision of the proposed Remediation Manager appointment order on December 18, 2025. In that opinion, the court overruled those objections and implemented key changes including: (1) replacing a single Remediation Action Plan with a series of successive plans to enable more dynamic and effective work; (2) shortening the period the DOC must maintain substantial compliance before authority returns from three to two successive reporting periods; and (3) maintaining the immunity and indemnity provisions of the appointment order as "clearly necessary and appropriate" given defendants' decade of mismanagement. In addition, the court would actively evaluate candidates for Remediation Manager and would enter a final Remediation Manager appointment order once a candidate was selected, with authority to oversee management of NYC jails to achieve substantial compliance with contempt provisions within seven years. 2025 LX 520170. The court issued another Remediation Manager appointment order on January 27, 2026. That same day it also issued an order outlining the Monitoring Team’s responsibilities.
On February 17, 2026, Judge Swain issued the final Remedial Manager appointment order and formally appointed the individual from the January 27, 2026 order as Nunez Remedial Manager. The Court found that traditional remedial measures had failed over nine years, requiring appointment of a remediation manager with direct authority to implement reforms. The Court emphasized that "continued insistence on compliance with the Court's orders by persons answerable principally to political authorities would lead only to confrontation and delay" and that "current management structure and staffing are insufficient to turn the tide within a reasonable period”. Therefore the court found it appropriate to appoint a Remediation manager with broad executive powers over defendant's operations related to the contempt provisions in the consent judgment, authority to develop and implement sequential Remediation Action Plans with specific benchmarks, and power to hire staff, modify policies, take personnel actions, and procure services. It called for a structured transition process back to the defendants’ control upon achieving substantial compliance. These Transition Plans would be designed to facilitate the termination of the Manager's authority within 60 days of the Monitoring Team filing a report finding that substantial compliance had been achieved with regard to one of the contempt provisions for two successive reporting periods, unless the court extended the termination date for good cause. 2026 WL 446193. The next day the court issued a notice informing the parties and public that the individual had accepted the Nunez Remediation Manager position. 2026 WL 458554.
As of April 2026, the case is still ongoing.
Summary Authors
Kya Henley (4/7/2014)
Kathryn DeLong (10/27/2015)
Sam Kulhanek (2/10/2019)
Sabrina Glavota (7/30/2020)
Justin Hill (9/2/2021)
Robin Peterson (12/1/2022)
Venesa Haska (11/23/2023)
Isabel Bysiewicz (2/9/2025)
CRIPA investigation of NYC Department of Correction Jails on Rikers Island, No Court (None)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4349463/parties/nunez-v-nyc-department-of-correction/
Abady, Jonathan S. (New York)
-, Devin Slack,
-, Glenn P.
Andriola, Patrick Nicholas (New York)
Atkinson, Sarah L. (New York)
Beckles, Nairuby L. (New York)
Chasan, Jonathan S. (New York)
Cleemann, Joseph Gaughan (New York)
Conniff, Christopher Paul (New York)
Gebreselassie, Sophia Assefa (New York)
Greenberger, Debra Lea (New York)
Hsu, Caroline Sandra (New York)
Katznelson, Zachary (New York)
Kellogg, Paul Schuyler (New York)
Raad, Amanda Nicole (New York)
Rosenfeld, Katherine R. (New York)
Salzman, Zoe Antonia (New York)
Brown, Jeffrey Alan (New York)
Koutsoudakis, Andreas (New York)
Kretz, Walter Aoysius (New York)
Larkin, Arthur Gabriel (New York)
Levander, Andrew J. (New York)
Neufeld, Sheryl Rebecca (New York)
Schatz, Julie Pearlman (New York)
Scheiner, Alan Howard (New York)
Schemitsch, John Edmund (New York)
Siddiqi, Omar Javed (New York)
Andriola, Patrick Nicholas (New York)
Biklen, Molly Knopp (New York)
Blain, Jennifer Ellen (New York)
Burns, John William (New York)
Creelan, Jeremy Micah (New York)
Daughtry, Emily Ewell (New York)
Doud, Rachael Lightfoot (New York)
Dunn, Christopher Thomas (New York)
Edmondson, Elizabeth Austin (New York)
Ejebe, Nwamaka Genevieve (New York)
Friedberg, Anna Elizabeth (New York)
Gemmell, Antony Philip (New York)
Greenberg, Glenn Padell (New York)
Matza-Brown, Daniel (New York)
Powell, Jeffrey Kenneth (New York)
Rickner, Robert Howard (New York)
Saldana, Lois Teresa (New York)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4349463/nunez-v-nyc-department-of-correction/
Last updated April 12, 2026, 8:39 p.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Post-PLRA enforceable consent decrees
Key Dates
Filing Date: Aug. 18, 2011
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
All present and future inmates confined in jails operated by the New York City Department of Corrections, except for the Elmhurst and Bellevue Prison Wards.
Plaintiff Type(s):
U.S. Dept of Justice plaintiff
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Granted
Defendants
City
New York City Department of Corrections
Defendant Type(s):
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997 et seq.
Constitutional Clause(s):
Other Dockets:
Southern District of New York 1:11-cv-05845
Southern District of New York 1:17-cv-02899
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 25-01723
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 24-03055
Special Case Type(s):
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Content of Injunction:
Implement complaint/dispute resolution process
Other requirements regarding hiring, promotion, retention
Amount Defendant Pays: $6,500,000
Issues
General/Misc.:
Incident/accident reporting & investigations
Staff (number, training, qualifications, wages)
Affected Sex/Gender(s):
Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:
Assault/abuse by non-staff (facilities)
Assault/abuse by staff (facilities)
Solitary confinement/Supermax (conditions or process)
Medical/Mental Health Care:
Mental health care, unspecified
Policing:
Case Summary of Nunez and United States v. City of New York, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/12072/ (last updated 2/9/2025).