Filed Date: Jan. 9, 1976
Clearinghouse coding complete
This class action lawsuit concerned conditions at the New York City Correctional Institution for Women (NYCCIFW). The plaintiffs filed this suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the City of New York, its Department of Corrections, and relevant officials. Represented by the Legal Aid Society of New York City, the plaintiffs sought injunctive relief as to issues they asserted were common to the entire class of pre-trial detainees at NYCCIFW. The case was assigned to Judge Charles H. Tenney.
On February 1, 1977, the court resolved the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment as to varying parts of the complaint. 26 F. Supp. 464. The court granted class certification and denied summary judgment as to all issues other than contact visits, clothing, and grooming. This meant that the court found there to be genuine issues of fact as to allegations relating to disciplinary procedure. Finding the defendants' distinctions between this case and that of Rhem v. Malcolm unpersuasive, the court granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs regarding visitation and ordered that contact visits be permitted. The court additionally granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs on the issue of clothing, holding that mere administrative concerns could not justify a no-pants policy for pre-trial detainees, even if incarcerated persons were not allowed to wear pants. Finally, the court found that there was no prohibition on women wearing their hair short, despite the plaintiffs' allegations to the contrary, and granted summary judgment on that issue to the defendants.
The defendants sought modifications of the court's order with respect to contact visits so as to prevent non-family members from having contact visits. However, the court denied such requested modifications, reasoning that the defendants had not advanced sufficient justifications that would distinguish family members from non-family persons. Over the next few months, the defendants struggled to comply with the court-ordered schedule for restructuring the facility to enable contact visits, so the court granted an additional 30-day deadline extension. On July 25, 1978, the parties reached a consent decree that outlined that detained persons could have up to four one-hour contact visits a week.
On November 27, 1978, the parties reached a comprehensive settlement. The terms of the settlement covered issues ranging from searches to individuals' property to religious services as well as facility sanitation.
Summary Authors
Matthew Feng (5/26/2023)
Berger, Joel (New York)
Cary, Eve (New York)
D'Apolito, Norma P. (New York)
Hellerstein, William E. (New York)
Carroll, Rosemary (New York)
Tenney, Charles Henry (New York)
Last updated Feb. 23, 2024, 4:43 a.m.
Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.State / Territory: New York
Case Type(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: Jan. 9, 1976
Case Ongoing: No reason to think so
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Pre-trial detained individuals at the New York City Correctional Institution for Women
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Granted
Defendants
New York City Department of Corrections (New York, New York), City
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Substantive Due Process
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Order Duration: 1978 - None
Content of Injunction:
Issues
General:
Access to lawyers or judicial system
Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:
Affected Sex or Gender:
Type of Facility: