Filed Date: May 11, 2020
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
On May 11, 2020, ten people jailed by the New York City Department of Corrections brought this class action challenging the conditions of confinement during the COVID-19 pandemic. Filing pro se, plaintiffs alleged that the jail failed to provide masks, hand sanitizer, and other basic mitigation tools to prevent the spread of COVID-19 within the jail. Their complaint also alleged due process violations relating to parole hearings and restrictions placed on their commissary access. The plaintiffs alleged that the jail’s actions violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments and sought declaratory and injunctive relief along with damages. The case was assigned to Judge Katherine Failla, U.S. District Court Judge for the Southern District of New York, who assigned the plaintiffs counsel for the duration of the litigation.
On May 18, 2020, the court severed plaintiffs’ claims. 2020 WL 2538999. Though their claims were similar, the court said, they did not stem from a common set of facts. Instead, each plaintiff’s case stemmed from unique criminal cases and medical issues according to the court. Their cases were nonetheless consolidated on June 15, 2020.
On June 10, 2020, the court ruled on the Eleventh Amendment liability of some defendants. 2020 WL 3073145. The court dismissed allegations against the New York Department of Corrections and the Division of Parole because, as state government entities, they were immune from private suit and had not waived their Eleventh Amendment rights. However, the court added "Jane/John Doe, NIC Respiratory Therapist" to the complaint.
The court requested an amended complaint after severing the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs filed that amended complaint on November 24, 2020, but the court dismissed it without prejudice on December 1 because the claims therein were unrelated to the consolidated action.
Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction on January 22, 2021 seeking to enjoin enforcement of various COVID-19 safety protocols at the jail, but the court denied this motion on February 19. The court considered the objective and subjective prongs that must be met to find conditions of confinement unconstitutional. Though it found the objective prong satisfied because plaintiffs showed a substantial risk of serious harm from COVID-19, the subjective prong was lacking. The court found that the jail took reasonable actions to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in its facility, even though it did not do everything in its power.
Plaintiffs renewed their motion for a preliminary injunction on July 10, 2021. The court has yet to rule on the renewed motion.
On December 10, 2021, the court requested the parties brief it on the impact the new vaccine mandate for New York corrections officers will have on the case.
This case is ongoing as of December 18, 2021.
Summary Authors
Jordan Katz (2/27/2022)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17147004/parties/azor-el-v-new-york-city-department-of-corrections/
Failla, Katherine Polk (New York)
Azor, Jean (New York)
Brown, Anthony (New York)
Carter, James (New York)
Cole, Ronnie (New York)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17147004/azor-el-v-new-york-city-department-of-corrections/
Last updated Dec. 16, 2024, 5:42 p.m.
Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.State / Territory: New York
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: May 11, 2020
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Ten people jailed by the New York City Department of Corrections, each suffering from conditions pre-disposing them to serious illness or death from COVID-19.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: Yes
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Pending
Defendants
New York City Department of Corrections (New York City, Queens), City
Jane/John Doe, NIC Respiratory Therapist (Queens), Private Entity/Person
New York State Division of Parole, State
Defendant Type(s):
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Procedural Due Process
Due Process: Substantive Due Process
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Food service / nutrition / hydration
Sanitation / living conditions
Staff (number, training, qualifications, wages)
COVID-19: