Keitt v. New York City
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111521
| S.D.N.Y. | 2011Background
- Keitt, a dyslexic incarcerated plaintiff, sues City and State Defendants asserting IDEA, ADA, Rehabilitation Act, EEOA, and §1983 claims relating to inadequate accommodations in schools and correctional programs through Elmira.
- Allegations span pre-Elmira education (public schools, juvenile detention, Rikers), Elmira education programs, and disciplinary proceedings, including alleged retaliation for grievances.
- Elmira policy required non-diploma prisoners to attend adult basic education or forfeit other programming; Keitt challenges this as discriminatory and punitive.
- Magistrate Judge Freeman recommended dismissal of many claims, transfer of Elmira claims to the Western District of NY, and denial of Keitt’s Second Amended Complaint with conditions.
- Court adopts the recommendation, granting in part the City Defendants’ dismissal and granting in part the State Defendants’ dismissal and transfer of Elmira claims.
- Keitt’s current location (Attica) and the mootness of Elmira-instituted injunctive relief inform the posture of remaining claims and potential amendments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exhaustion of IDEA remedies | Keitt alleges futility due to lack of notice and systemic failures. | Exhaustion required; no futility shown. | Futility exception applies; exhaustion can be excused for unexhausted IDEA claims. |
| Statute of limitations for IDEA claims | Disability-related claims tolled by tolling theories. | Claims untimely; accrual before age 21; no tolling proven. | IDEA claims untimely; not tolled; three-year period applies for unexhausted claims. |
| 11th Amendment immunity and ADA/Rehabilitation Act damages | Alleges discriminatory conduct against state actors with potential waivers. | State immunity bars damages in official capacities; some claims moot for injunctive relief. | 11th Amendment bars official-capacity damages; claims against Elmira/State entities proceed for compensatory damages; punitive damages barred. |
| Personal involvement of Fischer | Fischer knowingly denied accommodations and reviewed grievances without remedy. | No sufficient involvement under Colon test after Iqbal concerns. | Keitt plausibly alleges Fischer’s personal involvement; denial of relief denied at dismissal stage but avenues preserved. |
| Transfer vs. severance of Elmira claims | Elmira claims should stay in SDNY for convenience and merits. | Transfer to Western District of NY is appropriate. | Elmira claims transferred to Western District; severance denied as moot. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. City of Oneonta, 221 F.3d 329 (2d Cir. 2000) (elements for §1981 discrimination claim)
- Coleman v. Newburgh Enlarged Sch. Dist., 503 F.3d 198 (2d Cir. 2007) (exhaustion requirement and final agency decision rule)
- Weixel v. Bd. of Educ., 287 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 2002) (exhaustion futility in IDEA context)
- Piazza v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dist., 777 F. Supp. 2d 669 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (exhaustion and tolling under IDEA; final decision timing)
- Garcia v. S.U.N.Y. Health Sciences Center of Brooklyn, 280 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 2001) (11th Amendment and ADA/Title II immunity analysis)
- Handberry v. Thompson, 446 F.3d 335 (2d Cir. 2006) (educational rights and property interests in confinement context)
- Jones v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co., 541 U.S. 369 (Supreme Court 2004) (equitable tolling and statute-of-limitations framework for federal claims)