On May 3, 2018, a deaf individual in federal custody at Schuylkill Satellite Camp in Minersville, Pennsylvania filed this lawsuit against the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The plaintiff, represented by the National Association of the Deaf and private counsel, sued the Bureau in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §794. Alleging that the Bureau had violated the Act by refusing to provide videophone access. Hearing prisoners were allowed access to phones for communication with their family and friends. Because he was deaf, he could not use the phones, and the one TTY device available to him at the prison was cumbersome and frequently inaccessible. Further, TTY did not allow him to communicate in his primary language (American Sign Language). He sought a declaration that the Bureau was in violation of the Rehabilitation Act, a preliminary injunction requiring the Bureau to provide access to videophones immediately, and attorneys’ fees and costs. The case was assigned to Judge James M. Munley.

The plaintiff had previously sought administrative relief from the Department of Justice. An EEO officer issued a letter of findings determining that the TTY service provided to the plaintiff was an appropriate of the phone service provided to other prisoners. The plaintiff appealed the findings and had a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge, who upheld the EEO officer’s determination. The plaintiff again appealed, and a Complaint Adjudication Officer reversed the previous determinations, finding that TTY did not provide the plaintiff with equal participation opportunities, and further finding that the Bureau had failed to provide evidence that videophones would cause any undue administrative or financial hardship to the prison. However, the decision left the prison unlimited time to install a videophone, explaining that these “matters may take some time.” Three months later, in May 2018, the plaintiff filed this lawsuit.

After the lawsuit was filed, the Bureau began taking steps to install videophones, and the court ordered a series of status reports to track the Bureau’s progress. In June 2018, the Bureau’s Central Office provided notice to the prison that a national contract for video services had been renewed, instructing the prison to prepare, purchase, and install these videophones. On August 10, 2018, the court held a preliminary injunction hearing and heard evidence that the prison was preparing its infrastructure and computer systems to install three videophones and two monitoring stations. On November 28, 2018, the plaintiff made a phone call using the newly installed videophone at the prison.

On January 4, 2019, the court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction, noting a videophone had already been installed, and the plaintiff had access to that phone. The following month, the Bureau moved to dismiss the case as moot; the plaintiff opposed dismissal, arguing that the court should retain jurisdiction over the case because there was no guarantee that the Bureau would continue allowing the plaintiff access to the videophones. On March 25, 2019, the court stayed discovery pending resolution of the motion for dismissal. The court retained jurisdiction, and indicated that the plaintiff could seek expedited discovery or other relief in the event that the Bureau curtailed or eliminated the plaintiff’s access to videophones.

On March 27, 2019, the plaintiff renewed his opposition to dismissal, arguing that the prison still refused to commit to providing him videophone access for the remainder of his incarceration. He further argued that because the Bureau continued to insist that the Rehabilitation Act did not provide a private right of action, there was still a live controversy before the court. The court should retain jurisdiction, he argued, to ensure that he had continued access to a videophone until his release.

On May 15, 2019, Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson recommended that the Bureau’s motion be denied, and that the case be deferred as moot “pending completion of all aspects of [the plaintiff’s] sentence.” On August 6, 2019, District Judge Munley granted the Bureau’s motion to dismiss, ruling that the plaintiff’s claims were moot. 2019 WL 3564697.

On June 16, 2020, the court approved a settlement agreement requiring the Bureau to pay $156,000 in plaintiff attorneys’ fees.

The case is closed.

Chris Pollack - 04/01/2019
Bogyung Lim - 07/15/2020


compress summary