University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Pugh v. Goord PC-NY-0056
Docket / Court 1:00-cv-07279-KMK ( S.D.N.Y. )
State/Territory New York
Case Type(s) Prison Conditions
Case Summary
On 09/27/2000, three prisoners in New York state prisons, filing pro se, sued officials of the New York State Department of Correctional Services ("DOCS") and prison ministerial program coordinators. Professing to be Shiite Muslims, the plaintiffs alleged violations of their First and Fourteenth ... read more >
On 09/27/2000, three prisoners in New York state prisons, filing pro se, sued officials of the New York State Department of Correctional Services ("DOCS") and prison ministerial program coordinators. Professing to be Shiite Muslims, the plaintiffs alleged violations of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights in that the defendants failed to provide them religious accommodations separate from those provided for Sunni Muslim prisoners. Their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, sought class-action status for the case. On September 27, 2000, an unpublished order of District Judge Michael B. Mukasey observed that the complaint set out conclusions rather than factual specifics. Judge Mukasey directed the plaintiffs to amend their complaint to include specific allegations of how their religious freedom was burdened and what alternate means of worship the defendants should provide, so that the allegations would enable the defendants to mount an intelligent defense.

On November 17, 2000, the pro se plaintiffs filed their amended complaint. It sought a total of $500,000 in compensatory damages and injunctive relief. The relief would require the defendants to provide Shi'a prisoners a separate prayer area and access for Shi'a volunteers to assist in worship and religious study. Part of their complaint alleged that the DOCS religious program serving Islamic prisoners was administered by an openly hostile Sunni imam provided by DOCS.

The judge held an initial case management conference on June 7, 2001, with the plaintiffs appearing by telephone. Defendants' counsel advised that the case may be moot, in view of changes DOCS was making in response to a recent ruling in state court case, Cancel v. Goord, 717 N.Y.S.2d 610 (N. Y. App. Div. 2000). Defendants stated that they would add measures designed to secure the First Amendment rights of Shiite prisoners, but they disagreed with plaintiffs that separate services were constitutionally mandated. The unresolved dispute prompted the court to direct the parties to proceed to discovery. On August 13, 2001, plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, challenging the adequacy of the DOCS programs for Shiite prisoners and seeking an injunction requiring defendants to establish a separate religious program for Shiite prisoners.

District Judge Gerard E. Lynch denied the plaintiffs' motion on January 3, 2002, in Pugh v. Goord, 184 F.3d 326 (S.D. N.Y. 2002). The judge observed that DOCS' protocol formed the basis of the constitutional claims. Judge Lynch reviewed the measures DOCS had taken in August 2001 (post-Cancel v. Goord) to improve protections of Shiite prisoners’ rights. He adjudged these measures reasonable, ruling that establishing separate services for Shi'a and Sunni prisoners was not constitutionally required, in view of administrative and security burdens stemming from separate services. The defendants also had taken steps to address the alleged conduct of the imam. Plaintiffs could not, by this lawsuit, require the defendants to do more to discipline or control him, according to the court, since the plaintiffs had not exhausted available administrative remedies (as required by a part of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e, before bringing a § 1983 action with respect to prison conditions). In denying the motion for preliminary injunction, the judge ruled that plaintiffs' case would be dismissed, as well, since his decision considered all information relevant to plaintiffs' central goal of separate services.

Private counsel then entered on behalf of the plaintiffs and, on March 15, 2002, requested that the district judge vacate his order of dismissal. The request was accompanied by extensive discussion of Shiite-Sunni differences, DOCS practices, and alleged discrimination against Shiites in other DOCS facilities; however, Judge Lynch denied the plaintiffs' request on October 10, 2002. His unpublished order adhered to his earlier finding that DOCS had set forth reasonable justifications for refusing to provide separate opportunities for congregate worship. The judge also declined to consider a new argument that defendants' conduct violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA"), since that claim had not been made previously.

The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. There, on September 24, 2003, a panel of the court ruled that Judge Lynch had erred by dismissing the case entirely without first providing notice to the parties, who at that point only had reason to expect a ruling on the pending motion for a preliminary injunction. The appellate court did not address the merits of plaintiffs' claims. The panel did note that the plaintiffs, on remand, would have an opportunity to amend their complaint, if they chose. Pugh v. Goord, 345 F.3d 121 (2d Cir. 2003) (Circuit Judges Richard C. Wesley, Guido Calabresi, and Ellsworth Alfred Van Graafeiland).

On January 18, 2004, the plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint. (By this time, one plaintiff had been released from prison.) The complaint now set out in detail what the plaintiffs contended were substantial religious differences between Shiite and Sunni Muslim beliefs and practices. It asserted that DOCS provisions for Islamic prisoners failed to adequately respect these differences, and noted that DOCS-provided Sunni religious leaders had denigrated Shiite beliefs in prison sessions. Nonparty co-conspirators were named in the complaint and were alleged to have conspired with certain of the named defendants (past and present Islamic ministerial program coordinators) to make an extremist form of Sunni Islam the official version of Islam within DOCS facilities and to deny Shiite prisoners free exercise of religion and equal protection of the laws. The complaint noted that the prisons the defendants operated provided separate religious accommodations for eight denominations of Christian religious adherents and three variants of Islamic religious beliefs, but not for Shiites. Alleged violations of plaintiffs' constitutional and statutory rights by the defendants included their (1) imposing of an unjustified substantial burden on plaintiffs' religious exercise, contrary to 42 U.S.C. § 2000-cc (the "RLUIPA"); (2) denial of plaintiffs' rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendment guaranteeing the free exercise of religion, precluding the official establishment of a religion, and providing for equal protection of law; (3) conspiracy to deny in violation of 42 U.S.C § 1985, and failure to prevent a conspiracy to deny in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1986, these First and Fourteenth Amendment rights; and (4) violation of the rights to free exercise of religion provided by the New York constitution and statutes. Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory, nominal and punitive damages, and an award of attorney's fees and costs.

On September 15, 2004, the case was reassigned to District Judge Kenneth M. Karas. In the following months, discovery ensued, as did a challenge to the constitutionality of the RLUIPA. The challenge resulted, on January 19, 2006, in the United States filing a motion to intervene in defense of the constitutionality of that statute. The motion was granted on May 1, 2006, without opposition. On April 5, 2006, the plaintiffs filed for summary judgment. They later supplemented their motion on November 7 and 13, 2007.

On September 4, 2007, the case was reassigned to Judge Richard J. Sullivan, and oral arguments were scheduled for February 13, 2008. On August 1,2008, the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was granted and denied in part. The judgement granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment with regard to finding the now released plaintiff's claims for injunctive relief as moot, and ruled in favor of the defendants with regard to the plaintiff's claim that a successful claim under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) could include monetary damages. The defendants' motion for summary judgment was denied in all other respects. 571 F.Supp.2d 477.

On August 15, 2008, defendants appealed, on September 3, 2008, the plaintiffs cross-appealed. A status conference was held on October 31, 2008. As a result of that meeting, the court ordered that the parties submit a joint status letter by November 21, 2008, informing the court of the status of their settlement negotiations; this deadline was extended until January 9, 2009.

On January 29, 2009, the parties signed a settlement agreement and the plaintiffs dropped their claims against the defendants. The settlement agreement awarded damages of $6,000 total to the plaintiffs. It also created a policy for New York State Department of Correctional Services requiring that for three years after the agreement is signed, correctional facilities provide Shi’a services, including providing volunteer facilitators and a Shi’a imam. The parties agreed that once the three years passed, if the New York State Department of Correctional Services chose to end the program, they would need to notify the plaintiffs within sixty days. The agreed-upon services were conditional upon at least five people being present at the service, including the imam. Current inmates would be able to opt into the service within sixty days of the program being rolled out, and incoming inmates would be able to also opt-in to the services within sixty days of beginning their sentence. The case was closed and inactive as of July 1, 2009.

Mike Fagan - 05/01/2008
Christiana Johnson - 11/07/2019

compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Constitutional Clause
Equal Protection
Establishment Clause
Free Exercise Clause
Content of Injunction
Other requirements regarding hiring, promotion, retention
Required disclosure
Religion discrimination
Religious programs / policies
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Type of Facility
Causes of Action 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Defendant(s) Commissioner Glen Goord
Plaintiff Description State prisoners who are Shi'ite Muslims and who were only allowed access to Sunni Muslim services.
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status outcome Denied
Filed Pro Se Yes
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer No
Nature of Relief Damages
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Settlement
Form of Settlement Private Settlement Agreement
Order Duration 2009 - 2012
Filed 09/27/2000
Case Closing Year 2012
Case Ongoing No
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
  See this case at (May provide additional documents and, for active cases, real-time alerts)
Court Docket(s)
U.S. Court of Appeals
PC-NY-0056-9001.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
PC-NY-0056-9002.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Opinion and Order [Dismissing Case] [ECF# 30] (184 F.Supp.2d 326)
PC-NY-0056-0002.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Source: Google Scholar
Opinion and Order [Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate Judgment] [ECF# 45] (2002 WL 31296323 / 2002 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 19382)
PC-NY-0056-0004.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
U.S. Court of Appeals
[Appellate Opinion] (345 F.3d 121)
PC-NY-0056-0003.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Source: Google Scholar
Second Amended Complaint
PC-NY-0056-0001.pdf | Detail
Memorandum and Order [ECF# 144]
PC-NY-0056-0005.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Stipulation of Settlement [ECF# 161]
PC-NY-0056-0006.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
show all people docs
Judges Calabresi, Guido (Second Circuit) show/hide docs
Lynch, Gerard E. (S.D.N.Y., Second Circuit) show/hide docs
PC-NY-0056-0002 | PC-NY-0056-0004
Sullivan, Richard Joseph (S.D.N.Y., Second Circuit) show/hide docs
PC-NY-0056-0005 | PC-NY-0056-0006 | PC-NY-0056-9002
Van Graafeiland, Ellsworth Alfred (Second Circuit) show/hide docs
Wesley, Richard C. (State Trial Court, State Appellate Court, Second Circuit) show/hide docs
Plaintiff's Lawyers Chatin, Clay (New York) show/hide docs
PC-NY-0056-0006 | PC-NY-0056-9002
Coleman, Claire E. (New York) show/hide docs
Ennis, Errol (New York) show/hide docs
Flintoft, Caroline M. (New York) show/hide docs
Hamil, Edward (New York) show/hide docs
Howlett, Amy E. (New York) show/hide docs
PC-NY-0056-0006 | PC-NY-0056-9002
Kent, J. Andrew (New York) show/hide docs
PC-NY-0056-0001 | PC-NY-0056-0003 | PC-NY-0056-0004 | PC-NY-0056-9002
Lavine, Aaron Olshina (New York) show/hide docs
PC-NY-0056-0006 | PC-NY-0056-9002
Pugh, Thomas Jr. (New York) show/hide docs
Defendant's Lawyers Belohlavek, Michael S. (New York) show/hide docs
Cohen, Leonard Arthur (New York) show/hide docs
PC-NY-0056-0002 | PC-NY-0056-0004 | PC-NY-0056-9002
Keane, Michael J. (New York) show/hide docs
PC-NY-0056-0006 | PC-NY-0056-9002
Pandya, Sachin S. (New York) show/hide docs
Walsh, Mark T. (New York) show/hide docs
PC-NY-0056-0006 | PC-NY-0056-9002
Other Lawyers Mezan, Richard S. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -