University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Rosario v. Goord PC-NY-0051
Docket / Court 7:03-cv-00859-CLB ( S.D.N.Y. )
State/Territory New York
Case Type(s) Disability Rights-Pub. Accom.
Prison Conditions
Case Summary
Plaintiffs, disabled inmates of the New York State Department of Correctional Services (''DOCS''), brought an action via an amended complaint in April 2003, against defendants (DOCS administrators and health care facility supervisors) alleging violations of Title II of the Americans with ... read more >
Plaintiffs, disabled inmates of the New York State Department of Correctional Services (''DOCS''), brought an action via an amended complaint in April 2003, against defendants (DOCS administrators and health care facility supervisors) alleging violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (''ADA''), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., and the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794. The plaintiffs were represented by attorneys from The Prisoners' Rights Project of The Legal Aid Society in New York City. The case asked the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for declaratory and injunctive relief, together with attorneys' fees. The plaintiffs sought to redress the defendants' failure to provide access to prison programs, services and activities to prisoners with disabilities who are in DOCS custody and housed in its Regional Medical Units (RMUs). Plaintiffs sought to represent a class of individuals with disabilities housed in the RMUs, who are not provided access to prison programs available to non-disabled prisoners, such as educational, vocational, work and substance abuse programs, including those that would qualify them for an earlier release from prison.

The district court (District Judge Charles L. Brieant), in an unpublished memorandum and order dated September 24, 2003, dismissed the action. Judge Brieant found that plaintiffs had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies prior to filing suit as required by part of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), because, though they had arguably exhausted internal prison grievance procedures, they had not lodged a complaint with the Department of Justice (''DOJ''). DOJ regulations at 28 C.F.R. 35.170-178 provide a complaint procedure for persons who believe they have been subjected to discrimination on the basis of disability by a public entity and this procedure, too, according to the district court, must be exhausted prior to filing suit. The judge ruled this was so, even if the DOJ process is largely advisory and lacks the means of providing the relief the plaintiffs seek.

After the dismissal, plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Before the appeal process concluded, the defendants moved to have the appellate court vacate the district court's order and remand the case for further proceedings. The basis of the motion was the defendants' announced decision to abandon reliance on the DOJ administrative exhaustion defense, now and in the future. The plaintiffs consented to the motion and, in a brief ruling on March 2, 2005, the Second Circuit vacated the district court's order of dismissal and remanded the case. Rosario v. Goord, 400 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2005) (per curiam).

Having returned to the district court, the parties there disputed whether the case should be accorded class action status. In an unpublished order, Judge Brieant ruled in the plaintiffs' favor on that issue on September 15, 2005. A second amended complaint, filed by the plaintiffs of March 1, 2006, was answered by the defendants on March 23d. By July 21, 2006, the parties' settlement negotiations produced a voluntary stipulation of dismissal, subject to their settlement agreement and a notice of the impending dismissal and settlement was sent to the plaintiff class. On September 29, 2006, the court approved the voluntary dismissal and settlement agreement in the case. We do not have details about the settlement's terms.

We have no further information on the case.

Mike Fagan - 04/30/2008


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Affected Gender
Female
Male
Discrimination-basis
Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)
General
Recreation / Exercise
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Type of Facility
Government-run
Causes of Action Section 504 (Rehabilitation Act), 29 U.S.C. § 701
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.
Defendant(s) New York Department of Correctional Services
Plaintiff Description All prisoners with physical disabilities, as defined in 29 U.S.C. § 705(20) and 42 U.S.C. § 12102, who are now, or will in the future be, under the custody of DOCS and housed in the Fishkill, Walsh or Wende RMU.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations None on record
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status granted Yes
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Attorneys fees
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Settlement
Form of Settlement Private Settlement Agreement
Voluntary Dismissal
Order Duration 2006 - 2009
Case Closing Year 2006
Case Ongoing No
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
Case Studies Civil Rights Injunctions Over Time: A Case Study of Jail and Prison Court Orders
N.Y.U. Law Review
By: Margo Schlanger (Washington University)
Citation: 81 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 550 (2006)
[ Detail ] [ PDF ] [ External Link ]

  Judicial Policy Making and the Modern State: How the Courts Reformed America's Prisons
By: Malcolm M. Feeley & Edward Rubin (UC Berkeley Boalt Hall School of Law & Vanderbilt School of Law Faculty)
Citation: (1998)
[ Detail ]

Docket(s)
7:03-cv-00859-CLB (S.D.N.Y.) 10/16/2006
PC-NY-0051-9000 PDF | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Amended Complaint 04/01/2003
PC-NY-0051-0001 PDF | Detail
Memorandum and Order 09/24/2003 (2003 WL 22429271) (S.D.N.Y.)
PC-NY-0051-0003 PDF | WESTLAW | Detail
Per Curiam [USCA Order] 03/02/2005 (400 F.3d 108)
PC-NY-0051-0002 PDF | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Voluntary Stipulation of Dismissal Subject to Conditions and Order 07/21/2006
PC-NY-0051-0004 PDF | Detail
Document Source: Plaintiffs' counsel
Judges Brieant, Charles L. Jr. (S.D.N.Y.)
PC-NY-0051-0003 | PC-NY-0051-0004 | PC-NY-0051-9000
Cabranes, Jose Alberto (D. Conn., FISCR, Second Circuit)
PC-NY-0051-0002
Katzmann, Robert A. (Second Circuit)
PC-NY-0051-0002
Leval, Pierre Nelson (S.D.N.Y., Second Circuit)
PC-NY-0051-0002
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Banks, Steven L. (New York)
PC-NY-0051-0004
Beck, John A. (New York)
PC-NY-0051-0001
Boston, John (New York)
PC-NY-0051-0001 | PC-NY-0051-0002 | PC-NY-0051-0004
Ginsberg, Betsy R. (New York)
PC-NY-0051-0001 | PC-NY-0051-0002 | PC-NY-0051-0004 | PC-NY-0051-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Brown, Bruce A. (New York)
PC-NY-0051-9000
Hotvet, Martin A. (New York)
PC-NY-0051-0002
Schwartz, John Michael (New York)
PC-NY-0051-0004
Smirlock, Daniel (New York)
PC-NY-0051-0002
Spitzer, Eliot (New York)
PC-NY-0051-0002
Other Lawyers None on record

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -