Filed Date: Nov. 12, 1974
Clearinghouse coding complete
Sometime before July 23, 1975, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by all children classified as Persons in Need of Supervision (PINS) and placed in residential training schools by the New York State Family Courts against the State of New York and various state officers. The plaintiffs, represented by the Legal Aid Society initially and then by private counsel on appeal, brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and sought injunctive relief from the State's treatment of PINS violated their constitutional rights.
Under New York law, may be classified as PINS and placed in an institutional training school if they have been truant, are incorrigible, or are beyond the control of their guardian. The plaintiffs alleged that placement of PINS in rural institutions without rehabilitative treatment was cruel and unusual punishment and contrary to due process and equal protection. In addition, the plaintiffs alleged the schools violated State law by employing too few people.
On June 23, 1975, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Judge Lee P. Gagliardi) abstained from adjudicating the case because state courts had not yet interpreted the relevant state law. McRedmond v. Wilson, 402 F. Supp. 1087 (S.D.N.Y. 1975). The court stayed the proceedings until a state suit was brought and resolved and, consequently, denied the plaintiffs' request that a three-judge panel be convened to hear the constitutional claims.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals (Judge Walter Roe Mansfield) reversed the abstention decision but affirmed the denial of a three-judge panel. McRedmond v. Wilson, 533 F.2d 757 (2d Cir. 1976). The court held that federal adjudication was proper because the litigation involved a question of individual rights, specifically what were the minimum constitutional standards for the treatment of PINS. However, the court found that the constitutional claims were not substantial enough to merit review by a three-judge panel. For instance, the court was skeptical that the First Amendment's protection of freedom of association was impaired by the placement of PINS at schools where they could not see their friends whenever they wanted.
We lack the docket, the pleadings, and any information on proceedings following remand.
Summary Authors
Kristen Sagar (11/12/2007)
Gagliardi, Lee Parsons (New York)
Mansfield, Walter Roe (New York)
Dale, Michael J. (New York)
Hirshowitz, Samuel A. (New York)
Lefkowitz, Louis J. (New York)
Gagliardi, Lee Parsons (New York)
Mansfield, Walter Roe (New York)
Last updated Aug. 30, 2023, 2:35 p.m.
Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.State / Territory: New York
Case Type(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: Nov. 12, 1974
Case Ongoing: No reason to think so
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
all children classified as Persons in Need of Supervision (PINS) and placed in residential training schools by the New York State Family Courts
Plaintiff Type(s):
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: Unknown
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Granted
Defendants
New York Training Schools, School District
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Constitutional Clause(s):
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Unknown
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
General:
Staff (number, training, qualifications, wages)
Type of Facility: