Case: Williamson v. Maciol

9:20-cv-00537 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York

Filed Date: May 12, 2020

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This is a class action about the unequal treatment of female general custody prisoners in the Oneida County Jail (“the Jail”). On May 12, 2020, three female general custody prisoners filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York on behalf of themselves and the jail's female general custody prisoners (present or future). The plaintiffs sued the Oneida County Sheriff and the Chief Deputy of the Oneida County Jail under the Declaratory Judgment Act for violati…

This is a class action about the unequal treatment of female general custody prisoners in the Oneida County Jail (“the Jail”). On May 12, 2020, three female general custody prisoners filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York on behalf of themselves and the jail's female general custody prisoners (present or future). The plaintiffs sued the Oneida County Sheriff and the Chief Deputy of the Oneida County Jail under the Declaratory Judgment Act for violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; they also alleged violations of Article I § 11 of the New York State Constitution. Represented by the Legal Services of Central New York, the plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the Jail from denying female general custody prisoners equal access to the housing and program benefits that male general custody prisoners receive. The case was assigned to Judge Mae A. D'Agostino.

Plaintiffs claimed that the Jail discriminated against female general custody prisoners on the basis of gender by restricting these prisoners to “linear housing units” as opposed to “podular housing units” (pods), where male general custody prisoners are held, and by denying them equal access to programming and benefits. For men, the complaint explained, linear housing units were typically used to isolate prisoners with behavioral and disciplinary issues. But for women, they were used more generally.

The plaintiffs set out many allegations about the problems with linear units, which were smaller than pods and severely restricted prisoner movement. In particular, it said, some of the units had not been updated since 1965 and were covered in dirt and human excrement that female prisoners were forced to remove using limited cleaning supplies. At best, linear units had small common spaces with four picnic tables, no air conditioning and frosted windows that did not open. At worst, linear units did not have hot water, television or books. The plaintiffs’ unit (at the time of the complaint) had one shower and one phone, only one of which could be used at a time. Plaintiffs alleged inconsistent access to hot water and clean cold water and could only watch television every other day. When they did, plaintiffs could only choose from a small selection of DVDs. Plaintiffs were allowed only one hour of outdoor recreation a day, and they did not have access to exercise equipment.

In contrast, pods, where male general custody prisoners were housed, allowed prisoners to move freely unless they were mandated to lock-in. Pods resembled small high school cafeterias and were connected to recreation areas with exercise equipment, basketball hoops and a large window to let in fresh air. Pods also had small libraries with games and reading materials for the prisoners, a separate room for prisoners to video call their loved ones, cable televisions, hot water dispensers, microwaves and air conditioning. Finally, pods contained eight showers (one for every seven prisoners) and seven telephones (one for every eight prisoners), which were in separate areas. Male general custody prisoners’ cells were bigger than the women's cells and had windows, unlike women's housing.

In addition to having more humane housing, plaintiffs alleged that male general custody prisoners who exhibited good behavior were given access to programming and benefits that similar female general custody prisoners were denied, including free video calls and extra commissary items. Female general custody prisoners were also limited to laundry work programs, whereas male general custody prisoners had access to numerous work programs, including food service, car wash, general library, print shop, grounds maintenance, building maintenance and janitorial services.

The plaintiffs moved for class certification a week after filing their complaint, and also moved for a preliminary injunction on June 10, 2020, asking the court to provide the plaintiffs the same housing privileges and benefits as male prisoners. On August 3, 2020, Judge D'Agostino granted the plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification but denied the plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction. 2020 WL 4449527. In denying plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Judge D'Agostino held that the plaintiffs were not sufficiently likely to succeed on the merits, because they probably could not demonstrate that female general custody prisoners were not receiving substantially equivalent treatment to their male counterparts. Furthermore, Judge D'Agostino held that the balance of equities tipped in the defendants' favor because the public interest is best served when courts do not interfere with the daily operations of local jails.

On August 8, 2020, plaintiffs appealed to the Second Circuit. No further action has been docketed at this time. The case is ongoing.

Summary Authors

Becca Rogers (9/25/2020)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attrorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17151271/parties/barrett-v-maciol/


Judge(s)

D'Agostino, Mae Avila (New York)

Stewart, Daniel J. (New York)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Adams, Sara (New York)

Cotter, Joshua T. (New York)

Heins, Maurie G. (New York)

Young, Samuel C (New York)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Cartwright, Daniel (New York)

Walsh, David H. IV (New York)

Judge(s)

D'Agostino, Mae Avila (New York)

Stewart, Daniel J. (New York)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Adams, Sara (New York)

Cotter, Joshua T. (New York)

Heins, Maurie G. (New York)

Young, Samuel C (New York)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Cartwright, Daniel (New York)

Walsh, David H. IV (New York)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

9:20-cv-00537

Docket

Aug. 27, 2020

Aug. 27, 2020

Docket
1

9:20-cv-00537

Class Action Complaint

May 12, 2020

May 12, 2020

Complaint
28

9:20-cv-00537

Memorandum Decision and Order

Aug. 3, 2020

Aug. 3, 2020

Order/Opinion

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17151271/barrett-v-maciol/

Last updated Aug. 29, 2022, 3:24 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

COMPLAINT against Robert Maciol, Lisa Zurek (Filing fee $400 receipt number ANYNDC-5116096) filed by Nicole Williamson, Shannon Terrell, Sarah Barrett. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(meb) (Entered: 05/12/2020)

1 Civil Cover Sheet

View on RECAP

May 12, 2020

May 12, 2020

RECAP
2

Summons Issued as to Robert Maciol. (Attachments: # 1 Summons Issued as to Lisa Zurek)(meb) (Entered: 05/12/2020)

May 12, 2020

May 12, 2020

PACER
3

G.O. 25 FILING ORDER ISSUED: Initial Rule 16 Conference set for 8/10/2020 at 9:30 AM in Albany before Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart. Civil Case Management Plan must be filed and Mandatory Disclosures are to be exchanged by the parties on or before 8/3/2020. (Pursuant to Local Rule 26.2, mandatory disclosures are to be exchanged among the parties but are NOT to be filed with the Court.) (meb) (Entered: 05/12/2020)

May 12, 2020

May 12, 2020

PACER
4

TEXT-ONLY NOTICE REGARDING JUDGE D'AGOSTINO CASE DISPOSITION PILOT - Please refer to the Individual Rules and Practices of the Hon. Mae A. D'Agostino, U.S. District Judge, for guidance regarding the Case Disposition Pilot. https://www.nynd.uscourts.gov/sites/nynd/files/MAD_Rules_of_Practice_04_14_2020.pdf. (meb, ) (Entered: 05/12/2020)

May 12, 2020

May 12, 2020

PACER
5

NOTICE of Admission Requirement as to Parties Nicole Williamson, Sarah Barrett, Shannon Terrell; Attorney Sara Adams. Phone number is (315)-703-6500. Admissions due by 5/26/2020. (meb) (Entered: 05/12/2020)

May 12, 2020

May 12, 2020

PACER
6

NOTICE of Admission Requirement as to Parties Nicole Williamson, Sarah Barrett, Shannon Terrell; Attorney Maurie Heins. Phone number is (315)-703-6500. Admissions due by 5/26/2020. (meb) (Entered: 05/12/2020)

May 12, 2020

May 12, 2020

PACER
7

NOTICE of Appearance by David H. Walsh, IV on behalf of Robert Maciol, Lisa Zurek (Walsh, David) (Entered: 05/14/2020)

May 14, 2020

May 14, 2020

PACER
8

WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Robert Maciol, Lisa Zurek. Robert Maciol waiver sent on 5/14/2020, answer due 7/13/2020. (Walsh, David) (Entered: 05/14/2020)

May 14, 2020

May 14, 2020

PACER
9

NOTICE of Appearance by Maurie G. Heins on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Heins, Maurie) (Entered: 05/18/2020)

May 18, 2020

May 18, 2020

PACER
10

MOTION to Certify Class Motion Hearing set for 7/7/2020 10:00 AM in Albany before U.S. District Judge Mae A. D'Agostino Response to Motion due by 6/22/2020 Reply to Response to Motion due by 6/26/2020. filed by Sarah Barrett, Shannon Terrell, Nicole Williamson. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Law in support of Plaintiffs' Motion, # 2 Declaration of Joshua Cotter in support of Plaintiffs' Motion, # 3 Exhibit(s) 1-3 to the Declaration of Joshua Cotter, # 4 Exhibit(s) 4-12 to the Declaration of Joshua Cotter) (Cotter, Joshua) (Entered: 05/21/2020)

May 21, 2020

May 21, 2020

PACER
11

NOTICE of Appearance by Sara Adams on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Adams, Sara) (Entered: 05/26/2020)

May 26, 2020

May 26, 2020

PACER
12

Letter Motion from Counsel for Sarah Barrett, Shannon Terrell, Nicole Williamson requesting Approval to file a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction submitted to Judge D'Agostino . (Cotter, Joshua) (Entered: 05/26/2020)

May 26, 2020

May 26, 2020

PACER
13

Letter Motion from Defendants for Robert Maciol, Lisa Zurek requesting Extension of Time submitted to Judge D'Agostino . (Walsh, David) (Entered: 05/26/2020)

May 26, 2020

May 26, 2020

PACER
14

TEXT ORDER granting 13 Letter Motion: It is hereby ORDERED that the Defendants shall file a reply to 12 Plaintiffs letter for permission to file a preliminary injunction, by 6/2/2020. SO ORDERED by Judge Mae A. DAgostino on 5/28/2020. (ban) (Entered: 05/28/2020)

May 28, 2020

May 28, 2020

PACER

Order on Letter Request

May 28, 2020

May 28, 2020

PACER
15

Letter Motion from Defendants for Robert Maciol, Lisa Zurek requesting Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' letter requesting permission to file motion for a preliminary injunction submitted to Judge D'Agostino . (Walsh, David) (Entered: 06/01/2020)

June 1, 2020

June 1, 2020

PACER
16

NOTICE of Appearance by Daniel Cartwright on behalf of Robert Maciol, Lisa Zurek (Cartwright, Daniel) (Entered: 06/05/2020)

June 5, 2020

June 5, 2020

PACER

TEXT Minute Entry for Telephone Pre-Motion Conference held on 6/8/2020 before U.S. District Judge Mae A. D'Agostino: Appearances by Samuel Young, Esq., Joshua Cotter, Esq., and Sara Adams, Esq. for the Plaintiffs; and David Walsh, Esq. for the defendants; Judge D'Agostino addresses counsel regarding the plaintiff's request for leave to file a motion for preliminary injunction and the already filed motion for class certification; Counsel for the plaintiff and counsel for the defense address the Court; After hearing from the parties, Judge D'Agostino will permit the plaintiff to file their motion for a preliminary injunction by 6/11/20; The motion return date shall be set for July 7, 2020 (ON SUBMIT) before Judge D'Agostino; Response papers will be due by 6/22/20; Reply papers will be due on or before 6/26/20; the motion will be decided on the submission of the papers only, unless otherwise directed by the Court; The Court will decide the motion for class action and the motion for preliminary injunction at the same time. (Court Reporter Lisa Tennyson, CRD Britney Norton [Time 1:58 p.m. - 2:16 p.m.]) (ban)

June 8, 2020

June 8, 2020

PACER
17

MAIL RETURNED UNDELIVERABLE: The # 6 Notice of Admission Requirement that was sent to Attorney Maurie Heins, Esq. at 221 South Warren Street, 3rd Floor, Syracuse, NY 13202 was returned undeliverable. Envelope marked: "Not Here - Return to Sender - Not Deliverable as Addressed - Unable to Forward." (rep) (Entered: 06/09/2020)

June 9, 2020

June 9, 2020

PACER
18

MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Motion Hearing set for 7/7/2020 10:00 AM in Albany before U.S. District Judge Mae A. D'Agostino Response to Motion due by 6/22/2020 Reply to Response to Motion due by 6/26/2020. filed by Sarah Barrett, Shannon Terrell, Nicole Williamson. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Joshua Cotter in support of the Motion, # 2 Exhibit(s) 1-3 to the Declaration of Joshua Cotter, # 3 Exhibit(s) 4-12 to the Declaration of Joshua Cotter, # 4 Exhibit(s) 13-16 to the Declaration of Joshua Cotter, # 5 Memorandum of Law) (Cotter, Joshua) (Entered: 06/10/2020)

1 Declaration of Joshua Cotter in support of the Motion

View on PACER

2 Exhibit(s) 1-3 to the Declaration of Joshua Cotter

View on PACER

3 Exhibit(s) 4-12 to the Declaration of Joshua Cotter

View on PACER

4 Exhibit(s) 13-16 to the Declaration of Joshua Cotter

View on PACER

5 Memorandum of Law

View on PACER

June 10, 2020

June 10, 2020

RECAP
19

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Sarah Barrett, Shannon Terrell, Nicole Williamson re 18 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Cotter, Joshua) (Entered: 06/10/2020)

June 10, 2020

June 10, 2020

PACER
20

Letter Motion from David Walsh, Esq. for Defendants for Robert Maciol, Lisa Zurek requesting Extension of Time submitted to Judge D'Agostino . (Walsh, David) (Entered: 06/15/2020)

June 15, 2020

June 15, 2020

PACER
21

TEXT ORDER granting 20 Letter Request re 10 MOTION to Certify Class, 18 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction : It is hereby ORDERED that the joint request for an extension of the Plaintiffs' and Defendants' response and reply dates for both motions is GRANTED. Defendants' response to motions are due on or before 6/24/2020; Plaintiffs' Reply to Response to Motions are due by 6/29/2020. Signed by U.S. District Judge Mae A. D'Agostino on 6/17/20. (ban) (Entered: 06/17/2020)

June 17, 2020

June 17, 2020

PACER

Reset Deadlines as to 18 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, 10 MOTION to Certify Class - Response to Motion due by 6/24/2020, Reply to Response to Motion due by 6/29/2020. (ban)

June 17, 2020

June 17, 2020

PACER

Order on Letter Request

June 17, 2020

June 17, 2020

PACER
22

AFFIDAVIT re 10 MOTION to Certify Class filed by Robert Maciol, Lisa Zurek. (Walsh, David) Modified on 6/25/2020 to clarify docket text (rep). (Entered: 06/24/2020)

June 24, 2020

June 24, 2020

PACER
23

AFFIDAVIT in Opposition re 18 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Robert Maciol, Lisa Zurek. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Maciol, # 2 Declaration Declaration of Zurek, # 3 Declaration Declaration of Harris, # 4 Memorandum of Law)(Walsh, David) (Entered: 06/24/2020)

June 24, 2020

June 24, 2020

PACER
24

REPLY to Response to Motion re 18 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Sarah Barrett, Shannon Terrell, Nicole Williamson. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Supplementing the initial Declaration of Joshua Cotter in support of the motion, # 2 Exhibit(s) 1-5 to the Supplemental Declaration of Joshua Cotter)(Cotter, Joshua) (Entered: 06/29/2020)

June 29, 2020

June 29, 2020

PACER
25

Letter Motion from Joshua Cotter for Nicole Williamson requesting Enclosing thumb drive with video files submitted to Judge D'Agostino (delivered to Clerk's Office). (Young, Samuel) (Entered: 07/01/2020)

July 1, 2020

July 1, 2020

PACER
26

THUMB DRIVE: Received as an exhibit of the # 24 Reply. {Thumb drive on file in the Clerk's Office and is not available for public viewing}. (rep) (Entered: 07/02/2020)

July 1, 2020

July 1, 2020

PACER
27

ANSWER to 1 Complaint by Robert Maciol, Lisa Zurek.(Walsh, David) (Entered: 07/13/2020)

July 13, 2020

July 13, 2020

PACER
28

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER: GRANTING Plaintiff's 10 Motion For Class Certification and DENYING Plaintiff's 18 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The Court further orders that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Memorandum-Decision and Order on all parties in accordance with the Local Rules. Signed by U.S. District Judge Mae A. D'Agostino on August 3, 2020. (rep) (Entered: 08/03/2020)

Aug. 3, 2020

Aug. 3, 2020

RECAP
29

CIVIL CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN by Robert Maciol, Lisa Zurek. (Walsh, David) (Entered: 08/03/2020)

Aug. 3, 2020

Aug. 3, 2020

RECAP
30

TEXT ORDER: The Rule 16 Initial Conference in this matter is set for August 10, 2020 at 9:30 AM before the undersigned and will be conducted by TELEPHONE. The Court will issue a separate notice setting forth the instructions to connect to the conference call. SO ORDERED by Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart on 8/7/2020. (mab) (Entered: 08/07/2020)

Aug. 7, 2020

Aug. 7, 2020

PACER

Order

Aug. 7, 2020

Aug. 7, 2020

PACER

Text Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart: Rule 16 Initial Pretrial Conference held on 8/10/2020. Appearances: Joshua Cotter, Esq. and Samuel Young, Esq. for Plaintiffs; Daniel Cartwright, Esq. for Defendants. The Court hears from counsel as to their positions in this matter and as to how they intend to proceed. Court discusses the potential for settlement. The Court discusses question of fact that remains as to Plaintiffs' exhaustion of administrative remedies pursuant to District Judge D'Agostino's Memorandum-Decision and Order. The Court believes that resolving these questions early on will be beneficial as the case progresses. The Court schedules an exhaustion hearing. Deadlines set. A Scheduling Order to be issued. (TIME: 9:31AM-9:54AM). (mab)

Aug. 10, 2020

Aug. 10, 2020

PACER
31

TEXT ORDER: As per the Court's August 3, 2020 Memorandum-Decision and Order (Dkt. No. 28), questions of fact exist as to Plaintiffs' exhaustion of administrative remedies. As such, the issue of exhaustion is referred to Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart in order to set an exhaustion hearing with the parties. Signed by U.S. District Judge Mae A. D'Agostino on 8/14/2020. (ban) (Entered: 08/14/2020)

Aug. 14, 2020

Aug. 14, 2020

PACER
32

UNIFORM PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER: Anticipated length of trial: 4 Days. Preferred Trial Location: Albany, NY. Joinder of Parties due by 1/29/2021. Amended Pleadings due by 1/29/2021. Discovery due by 6/30/2021. Motions to be filed by 8/31/2021. Status Report due by 11/30/2020. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart on 8/14/2020. (mab) (Entered: 08/14/2020)

Aug. 14, 2020

Aug. 14, 2020

PACER
33

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT OBTAIN SEPARATE COUNSEL as to Defendants Robert Maciol and Lisa Zurek. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart on 8/14/2020. (mab) (Entered: 08/14/2020)

Aug. 14, 2020

Aug. 14, 2020

PACER

Set Deadlines: Defendants to respond to 33 Order to Show Cause on or before 10/13/2020. (mab)

Aug. 14, 2020

Aug. 14, 2020

PACER
34

TEXT ORDER: An Exhaustion Hearing in this matter is scheduled for October 15, 2020 at 9:30 AM before the undersigned. The parties are directed to file pre-hearing submissions, including witness lists and exhibit lists, on or before October 5, 2020. Two sets of exhibits shall be provided to the Court and a set provided to opposing counsel prior to the date of scheduled hearing. SO ORDERED by Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart on 8/14/2020. (mab) (Entered: 08/14/2020)

Aug. 14, 2020

Aug. 14, 2020

PACER

Order

Aug. 14, 2020

Aug. 14, 2020

PACER

~Util - Set Hearings AND Order

Aug. 14, 2020

Aug. 14, 2020

PACER
35

NOTICE OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL as to 28 Order on Motion to Certify Class,, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, by Nicole Williamson. Filing fee $ 505, receipt number ANYNDC-5212444. (Young, Samuel) Modified on 8/20/2020 to indicate the appeal is interlocutory (rep, ). (Entered: 08/20/2020)

Aug. 20, 2020

Aug. 20, 2020

PACER
36

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Nicole Williamson of Notice of Appeal (Young, Samuel) (Entered: 08/20/2020)

Aug. 20, 2020

Aug. 20, 2020

PACER
37

ELECTRONIC NOTICE AND CERTIFICATION sent to US Court of Appeals regarding the 35 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal. (rep) (Entered: 08/20/2020)

Aug. 20, 2020

Aug. 20, 2020

PACER

CLERK'S CORRECTION OF DOCKET ENTRY: The clerk modified the docket text of the # 35 Appeal to indicate that it is an Interlocutory Appeal. (rep)

Aug. 20, 2020

Aug. 20, 2020

PACER

USCA Case Number 20-2779 for 35 Notice of Appeal. (rep)

Aug. 27, 2020

Aug. 27, 2020

PACER
38

Letter Motion from defendants for Robert Maciol, Lisa Zurek requesting Rescheduling of Exhaustion Hearing submitted to Judge Stewart . (Walsh, David) (Entered: 09/16/2020)

Sept. 16, 2020

Sept. 16, 2020

PACER
39

TEXT ORDER: On September 16, 2020, Defendants filed a Letter Request, with the consent of Plaintiffs, seeking to reschedule the Exhaustion Hearing in this matter. Dkt. No. 38 . Based upon the reasons set forth in Defendants' submission and upon the consent of the parties, the request is GRANTED and the Exhaustion Hearing is RESCHEDULED for November 19, 2020 at 9:30 AM in Albany, NY before the undersigned. The parties are directed to file pre-hearing submissions, including witness lists and exhibit lists, on or before November 9, 2020. Two sets of exhibits shall be provided to the Court and a set provided to opposing counsel prior to the date of scheduled hearing. SO ORDERED by Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart on 9/23/2020. (mab) (Entered: 09/23/2020)

Sept. 23, 2020

Sept. 23, 2020

PACER

Order on Letter Request

Sept. 23, 2020

Sept. 23, 2020

PACER
42

Letter Request/Motion

Nov. 3, 2020

Nov. 3, 2020

PACER
43

Letter Request/Motion

Nov. 3, 2020

Nov. 3, 2020

PACER
44

Letter Request/Motion

Nov. 3, 2020

Nov. 3, 2020

PACER

Order on Letter Request AND Order on Letter Request

Nov. 9, 2020

Nov. 9, 2020

PACER
46

Letter Request/Motion

Nov. 9, 2020

Nov. 9, 2020

PACER
59

Letter Request/Motion

Dec. 4, 2020

Dec. 4, 2020

PACER
60

Order on Letter Request

Dec. 7, 2020

Dec. 7, 2020

PACER
63

Letter Request/Motion

Dec. 8, 2020

Dec. 8, 2020

PACER
64

Letter Request/Motion

Dec. 8, 2020

Dec. 8, 2020

PACER
67

Letter Request/Motion

Jan. 14, 2021

Jan. 14, 2021

PACER

Order on Letter Request

Jan. 15, 2021

Jan. 15, 2021

PACER
70

Letter Request/Motion

Feb. 18, 2021

Feb. 18, 2021

PACER

Order on Letter Request

Feb. 19, 2021

Feb. 19, 2021

PACER
73

Report and Recommendations

March 11, 2021

March 11, 2021

PACER
75

Letter Request/Motion

March 18, 2021

March 18, 2021

PACER

Order on Letter Request

March 23, 2021

March 23, 2021

PACER
77

Letter Request/Motion

Sept. 8, 2021

Sept. 8, 2021

PACER
79

Letter Request/Motion

Sept. 24, 2021

Sept. 24, 2021

PACER

Order on Letter Request

Sept. 24, 2021

Sept. 24, 2021

PACER

Order on Letter Request

Sept. 29, 2021

Sept. 29, 2021

PACER
82

Letter Request/Motion

Oct. 1, 2021

Oct. 1, 2021

PACER

Order on Letter Request

Oct. 4, 2021

Oct. 4, 2021

PACER
87

DISCOVERY ORDER: The Court grants the Plaintiff's 77 Letter-Motion in part as noted further herein. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart on October 22, 2021. (rep)

Oct. 22, 2021

Oct. 22, 2021

RECAP
88

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERS that Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction (Dkt. No. 18 ) is GRANTED. ORDERS that Magistrate Judge Stewart's Report-Recommendation and Order (Dkt. No. 73 ) is ADOPTED in its entirety for the reasons set forth herein. ORDERS that, within TEN (10) DAYS of the date of the Memorandum-Decision and Order, Defendant shall return female general custody inmates to one of the pod housing units, thereby providing the same housing option afforded to male general custody inmates. ORDERS that pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ยง 3626(a)(2), this preliminary injunctive relief shall expire within NINETY (90) DAYS of the effective date of this Memorandum-Decision and Order. ORDERS that, prior to the expiration of this preliminary injunction, Plaintiffs may seek to renew the preliminary injunction for an additional ninety (90) days, by making a request with the Court, in writing, seeking such an extension. Signed by U.S. District Judge Mae A. D'Agostino on January 14, 2022. (nas) (Entered: 01/14/2022)

Jan. 14, 2022

Jan. 14, 2022

RECAP
89

Letter Motion from Defendant for Robert Maciol, Lisa Zurek requesting Extension of Discovery submitted to Judge Stewart . (Walsh, David) (Entered: 01/24/2022)

Jan. 24, 2022

Jan. 24, 2022

PACER
90

TEXT ORDER RE: 89 Letter Request. Request for an extension of the pretrial deadlines is granted and deadlines are reset as follows: Discovery due by 2/28/2022 and Dispositive Motions to be filed by 4/29/2022. Authorized by Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart on January 26, 2022. (nas ) (Entered: 01/26/2022)

Jan. 26, 2022

Jan. 26, 2022

PACER

Order on Letter Request

Jan. 26, 2022

Jan. 26, 2022

PACER
91

NOTICE OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL as to 88 Order on Report and Recommendations,,,, by Robert Maciol, Lisa Zurek. Filing fee $ 505, receipt number ANYNDC-5786892. (Walsh, David) Modified on 1/31/2022 to reflect an interlocutory appeal (nas, ). (Entered: 01/28/2022)

Jan. 28, 2022

Jan. 28, 2022

PACER

CLERK'S CORRECTION OF DOCKET ENTRY re 91 Notice of Appeal. Docket text modified to indicate it's an interlocutory appeal. (nas, )

Jan. 31, 2022

Jan. 31, 2022

PACER
92

ELECTRONIC NOTICE AND CERTIFICATION sent to US Court of Appeals re 91 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal (nas, ) (Entered: 01/31/2022)

Jan. 31, 2022

Jan. 31, 2022

PACER

USCA Case Number 22-200 for 91 Notice of Appeal, filed by Robert Maciol, Lisa Zurek. (nas, )

March 1, 2022

March 1, 2022

PACER
93

STIPULATION Re: Continued Preliminary Injunctive Relief by Sarah Barrett submitted to Judge D'Agostino. (Cotter, Joshua) (Entered: 04/14/2022)

April 14, 2022

April 14, 2022

PACER
94

STIPULATION AND ORDER extending the preliminary injunction for an additional ninety (90) days. Signed by U.S. District Judge Mae A. D'Agostino on 4/22/22. (ban) (Entered: 04/22/2022)

April 22, 2022

April 22, 2022

PACER
95

MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Sarah Barrett. Motion returnable before Judge D'Agostino., MOTION for Permanent Injunction filed by Sarah Barrett. Motion returnable before Judge D'Agostino Response to Motion due by 5/18/2022. Reply to Response to Motion due by 5/25/2022 (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Joshua Cotter in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, # 2 Exhibit(s) 1-4 to the Declaration of Joshua Cotter, # 3 Exhibit(s) 5-10 to the Declaration of Joshua Cotter, # 4 Exhibit(s) 11-16 to the Declaration of Joshua Cotter, # 5 Exhibit(s) 17-20 to the Declaration of Joshua Cotter, # 6 Exhibit(s) 21-25 to the Declaration of Joshua Cotter, # 7 Statement of Material Facts, # 8 Memorandum of Law) (Cotter, Joshua) (Entered: 04/27/2022)

April 27, 2022

April 27, 2022

PACER
96

Letter Motion from Defendants for Robert Maciol, Lisa Zurek requesting Extension submitted to Judge D'Agostino . (Walsh, David) (Entered: 04/27/2022)

April 27, 2022

April 27, 2022

PACER

TEXT Minute Entry for Telephone Status Conference held on 5/2/2022 before U.S. District Judge Mae A. D'Agostino: Appearances by Joshua Cotter, Esq. and Samuel Young, Esq. for the Plaintiff; David Walsh, IV, Esq. and Daniel Cartwright, Esq. for the defendants; Judge D'Agostino addresses counsel regarding the Motion for summary judgment filed by the plaintiff in this case and the Notice of appeal filed by the defendants - Counsel are reminded about Judge D'Agostino's individual rules that require a pre-motion letter be filed, prior to the filing of dispositive motions. Judge D'Agostino will accept the motion for summary judgment as filed, and grants the defendants request for an extension of the response deadline - Defendants Response to Motion for Summary Judgment due 6/30/22; Plaintiff reply due 7/7/22; Counsel for the defendants inform the Court that they are continuing to discuss possible resolutions to this matter with their clients. All counsel would be interested in a settlement conference with the Court, after the defense deals with a few preliminary matters - Counsel for the defendant is directed to contact the Court within 3 weeks to advise if counsel would like a settlement conference scheduled before Judge D'Agostino or Magistrate Judge Stewart (deadline 5/23/22). The Court will schedule a status conference with counsel, prior to the response deadline, to further discuss the status of this case.(Court Reporter Lisa Tennyson, CRD Britney Norton [Time 10:59 a.m. - 11:09 a.m.]) (ban)

May 2, 2022

May 2, 2022

PACER

Reset Deadlines as to 95 MOTION for Summary Judgment/MOTION for Permanent Injunction filed by Sarah Barrett. Motion returnable before Judge D'Agostino. Response to Motion due by 6/30/2022; Reply to Response to Motion due by 7/7/2022 (ban)

May 2, 2022

May 2, 2022

PACER
97

TEXT ORDER granting 96 Letter Motion from Defendants for Robert Maciol, Lisa Zurek requesting Extension submitted to Judge D'Agostino : It is hereby ORDERED that the joint request for an extension of time to respond to the 95 Motion for Summary Judgment, is GRANTED; Response to motion due 6/30/22; Reply to Response to Motion due 7/7/22. Signed by U.S. District Judge Mae A. D'Agostino on 5/2/22. (ban) (Entered: 05/02/2022)

May 2, 2022

May 2, 2022

PACER

Order on Letter Request

May 2, 2022

May 2, 2022

PACER
98

ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE: A Settlement Conference is set for 6/7/2022 at 09:30 AM in Albany before U.S. District Judge Mae A. D'Agostino. Signed by U.S. District Judge Mae A. D'Agostino on 5/18/2022. (ban) (Entered: 05/18/2022)

May 18, 2022

May 18, 2022

PACER

TEXT NOTICE RE-SETTING DEADLINE: All Settlement Conference statements, previously due on 6/6/22, are now due on Friday, 6/3/22 at 12:00 p.m.. Counsel are directed to email their settlement conference statements to chambers, at the email provided to counsel on 5/31/22. (ban)

June 1, 2022

June 1, 2022

PACER

TEXT Minute Entry for Settlement Conference held on 6/7/2022 before U.S. District Judge Mae A. D'Agostino: Appearances by Joshua Cotter, Esq. and Samuel Young, Esq. for the Plaintiff; David Walsh, IV, Esq. and Daniel Cartwright, Esq. for the defendant; Judge D'Agostino discusses settlement with counsel. This case is SETTLED in Principle, awaiting the County Attorney's Office and County Legislative approval and the formal settlement papers; An outline of the proposed settlement is placed on the record - a settlement agreement will be provided to the Court within 21 days; Once the settlement agreement is received by the Court, the defendants should advise the Court of how long they expect County Legislative approval to take. In light of this settlement in principle, the Motion for Summary Judgment and the associated response and reply deadlines are STAYED pending the final settlement of this action. (Court Reporter Jacqueline Stroffolino, CRD Britney Norton [Time 9:30 a.m. - 10:32 a.m., on the record time 10:26 a.m.- 10:32 a.m.)]) (ban)

June 7, 2022

June 7, 2022

PACER

TEXT NOTICE Cancelling Telephone Status Conference: Due to the anticipated settlement of this matter, the telephone conference scheduled for June 27, 2022 at 9:30 a.m. is CANCELLED. (ban)

June 14, 2022

June 14, 2022

PACER
100

Miscellaneous/Other Relief

July 20, 2022

July 20, 2022

PACER
101

ORDER granting 100 Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. The Final Approval Hearing is set for October 21, 2022 at 12:00 p.m. in Albany before Judge D'Agostino. All pretrial proceedings in this action are stayed and suspended until further order of this Court, except such actions as may be necessary to implement the Settlement Agreement, this Preliminary Approval Order, and final approval of the Settlement Agreement and class certification. Signed by U.S. District Judge Mae A. D'Agostino on 8/2/22. (ban)

Aug. 2, 2022

Aug. 2, 2022

RECAP

Case Details

State / Territory: New York

Case Type(s):

Jail Conditions

Special Collection(s):

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

Key Dates

Filing Date: May 12, 2020

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Three female general custody prisoners, on behalf of all female general custody prisoners who are or will be incarcerated at the Oneida County Jail.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

Legal Services/Legal Aid

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

County Sheriff and Chief Deputy of the County Jail (Oneida), County

Defendant Type(s):

Corrections

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

State law

Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201

Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)

Constitutional Clause(s):

Equal Protection

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Outcome

Prevailing Party: None Yet / None

Nature of Relief:

None yet

Source of Relief:

None yet

Content of Injunction:

Preliminary relief denied

Issues

General:

Classification / placement

Conditions of confinement

Food service / nutrition / hydration

Recreation / Exercise

Sanitation / living conditions

Totality of conditions

Discrimination-basis:

Sex discrimination

Affected Gender:

Female

Type of Facility:

Government-run