Butler v. Suffolk County
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40149
E.D.N.Y2013Background
- Action brought May 27, 2011 by inmates at Suffolk County Correctional Facility (SCCF) and later consolidated from 111 complaints naming 163 plaintiffs; court consolidated related actions for judicial economy and efficiency.
- Consolidated Amended Complaint (CAC) asserts four claims: 14th Amendment cruel and unusual punishment for pretrial detainees, 8th Amendment for sentenced prisoners, New York due process for pretrial detainees, and New York common-law negligence.
- Riverhead and Yaphank are the two SCCF facilities at issue; Riverhead allegedly has toilets that back up and expose inmates to human waste, moldy showers, rusted pipes, brown/or sewage-smelling water, and contaminated drinking water; Yaphank exhibits similar conditions.
- Named Plaintiffs Butler, Sims, Lofton, Alver, King, and Lynch were at SCCF during the alleged conditions and sufferings; Defendants are Suffolk County, Sheriff DeMarco, Undersheriffs Caracappa and Meyerricks.
- Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss; dismissed supervisory claims against DeMarco, Caracappa, Meyerricks without prejudice; denied dismissals on PLRA exhaustion and physical injury grounds; certified two classes (Injunctive and Damages) with facility-based subclasses; allowed Named Plaintiffs to file a Second Consolidated Class Action Complaint within 30 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing of named plaintiffs | Named Plaintiffs allege concrete, particularized injuries from SCCF conditions. | Defendants contend lack of injury-in-fact for standing. | Standing satisfied at pleading stage; claims not dismissed on standing. |
| Mootness of injunctive/declaratory relief | Injunctive relief continues to be relevant for class. | Transfer from SCCF moots claims for individuals. | Injunctive claims not moot; relation back allows standing to pursue class claims. |
| Exhaustion under PLRA | Exhaustion may be excused or not required at pleading stage; nonexhaustion not dispositive here. | Inmates failed to exhaust administrative remedies. | Exhaustion defense premature; not dismissal at this stage; exhaustion may be excused under specific circumstances. |
| Supervisory liability under §1983 | DeMarco, Caracappa, Meyerricks liable for knowing or policy-created unconstitutional conditions. | Lack of actual knowledge; insufficient for supervisory liability; policy-based liability may apply. | Claims against DeMarco, Caracappa, Meyerricks dismissed without prejudice for lack of actual knowledge; supervisory liability theory limited. |
| Class certification (Rule 23) | Injunctive class and damages class meet Rule 23 prerequisites; joinder impracticable; common questions predominate; certification appropriate with subclasses by facility. | Numerosity, ascertainability, and damages issues risk; some defenses mootness/exhaustion may vary by class. | Injunctive and Damages Classes certified with facility-based subclasses; Injunctive class limited to declaratory/injunctive relief; Damages class certified with monetary relief; Second Consolidated Complaint permitted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (Supreme Court (1992)) (standing requires concrete, particularized injury that is actual or imminent)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court (2009)) (pleading must contain plausible claims; bare legal conclusions insufficient)
- Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court (2007)) (factual allegations must permit reasonable inference of liability; not mere speculation)
- Makarova v. United States, 201 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2000) (authority to resolve jurisdictional questions may be based on extrinsic evidence; jurisdictional burden on plaintiff)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (Supreme Court (2011)) (commonality requires common contention capable of classwide resolution; not just common questions)