On October 22, 1974, prisoners at New York's two state prisons for women filed a class action lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the New York Department of Corrections in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs, who were represented in part by Bronx Legal Services, asked the court for declaratory and injunctive relief to enjoin the prison officials from enforcing prison disciplinary procedures unless they complied with due process. Specifically, the plaintiffs requested that the defendants be required to provide them with a written statement of charges against them, notice of evidence relied on, reasons for the disciplinary decision, and notice of the prisoner's right to call witnesses.

On April 23, 1975, the District Court (Judge Charles E. Stewart) granted a preliminary injunction to the plaintiffs, finding that the defendants had violated their constitutional rights by putting them in segregation without procedural safeguards, thereby wrongfully depriving them of many basic rights and privileges, which were granted to the general prison population. Powell v. Ward, 392 F.Supp. 628 (S.D.N.Y. 1975). The defendants appealed. On September 17, 1976, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Judge Jon Ormond Newman) affirmed the District Court's decision, modifying it slightly to allow for prisoner disciplinary hearings to be delayed more than seven days if there were unusual or emergency situations. Powell v. Ward, 542 F.2d 102 (2nd Cir. 1976).

In 1979, the plaintiffs asked the District Court to hold the superintendent of the Bedford Hills facility in contempt for failure to comply with the Court's orders. On February 27, 1980, the District Court (Judge Stewart) found that the superintendent had failed to provide the procedural safeguards mandated by the court and granted the request for an injunction, holding the superintendent in civil contempt. The Court also appointed Linda R. Singer to be Special Master, charging her with the duty to monitor the defendants' compliance and submit reports to the Court. Powell v. Ward, 487 F.Supp. 918 (S.D.N.Y. 1980). The superintendent appealed, and on March 4, 1981, the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision. Powell v. Ward, 643 F.2d 924 (2nd Cir. 1981).

On July 6, 1984, the parties entered into a consent judgment, but we have no information on what the judgment included. The Special Master submitted regular reports to the District Court, and pursuant to those reports, on March 20, 1991, the District Court (Judge Stewart) ordered that the outcomes of seven inmate hearings to be reversed for lack of due process. The Court also invalidated the state policy protecting the confidentiality of clinical consultations by mental health personnel concerning prison inmates because the defendants had not sought formal modification of the injunction before enforcing the new policy. Powell v. Ward, 1991, WL 41654 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 20, 1991). The defendants appealed, and on December 27, 1991, the Second Circuit (Judge Newman) reversed the District Court's decision and remanded the case, finding that the procedural errors were harmless and that the defendants did not have to seek formal modification of the injunction. Powell v. Coughlin, 953 F.2d 744 (2nd Cir. 1991).

In February, 1992, the defendants moved for an order, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5), terminating the permanent injunction that had been entered against them. They argued that they were in full compliance with the order, and that further monitoring was unnecessary. The plaintiffs opposed the motion, and on August 25, 1993, the District Court (Judge Stewart) denied the motion to terminate the injunction, but agreed to re-hear it in six months. Powell v. Coughlin, 1993 WL 328837 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 1993). The defendants appealed, and on April 28, 1994, the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision. On May 17, 1995, the District Court (Judge John S. Martin) reconsidered and granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, terminating the jurisdiction of the Court.

Kristen Sagar - 10/02/2007


compress summary