2014-12-18 DOJ SDNY pdf 65 KB 7,347 chars

United States v. City Of New York, Southern District of New York (Dec. 18, 2014)

raw: United States Motion To Intervene

United States Motion To Intervene (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2014)

Caption: United States v. City Of New York

Exhibit of Department Of Justice Takes Legal Action To Address Pattern And Practice Of Excessive Force And Violence At Rikers Island Jails That Violates The Constitutional Rights Of Young Male Inmates

Source PDF JSON

Enriched metadata

Scheme: obstruction (100%)
Court: Southern District of New York

Classified obstruction(confidence 100%). No EDGAR filing fingerprint (criminal/DOJ-side scheme). detection rule →

Extracted insights

Entities 2

person Attorney General
location United States

Triples 7

United States moves to intervene in the Nunez Action
United States sent 79-page letter to the City of New York on August 4, 2014
City has engaged in pattern or practice of subjecting Subject Inmates to excessive force
City has engaged in pattern or practice of failing to protect Subject Inmates from violence
City has engaged in pattern or practice of placing Subject Inmates in punitive segregation at an alarming rate
Attorney General certifies that prerequisites to filing the Motion to Intervene have been met
Attorney General provided notice to Bill de Blasio, Joseph Ponte, and Zachary Carter

PDF

United States Motion To Intervene · Source

Text layers

Extracted body text (7,347c)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

-------------------------------------------------------------

MARK NUNEZ, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

- against -

CITY OF NEW YORK, et al.,

Defendants.

-------------------------------------------------------------

X
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
X

11 Civ. 5845 (LTS)(JCF)

UNITED STATES’ MOTION TO
INTERVENE PURSUANT TO THE
CIVIL RIGHTS OF
INSTITUTIONALIZED PERSONS ACT,
42 U.SC. § 1997

UNITED STATES’ MOTION TO INTERVENE

The United States of America (the “United States” or “Government”) moves to intervene,

pursuant to Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in the above-captioned case (the

“Nunez Action”). Pursuant to Rule 24(c), the United States has attached its proposed Complaint-

in-Intervention. In support of its Motion, the United States submits that:

1. Pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (“CRIPA”), 42

U.S.C. § 1997, et seq., on August 4, 2014, the United States sent a 79-page letter to the City of

New York (the “City”), its chief legal officer, and the Department of Correction formally

notifying them of the Government’s findings that young male inmates – ages 16, 17, and 18 –

incarcerated on Rikers Island (the “Subject Inmates”) were being subject to unconstitutional

conditions of confinement. In particular, the findings letter asserted that the City has engaged in

a pattern or practice of: (a) subjecting the Subject Inmates to excessive and unnecessary use of

force; (b) failing to adequately protect the Subject Inmates from violence inflicted by other

inmates; and (c) placing the Subject Inmates in punitive segregation at an alarming rate and for

excessive periods of time. CRIPA gives the Department of Justice authority to seek a remedy for

a pattern or practice of conduct that violates the constitutional rights of inmates in correctional

facilities.

2. The Nunez Action asserts that the City has engaged in a pattern and practice of

using unnecessary and excessive force against inmates. The allegations in the Nunez Action

overlap significantly with the conduct described in the Government’s findings letter, including

but not limited to allegations that Department of Correction staff use force against inmates as

punishment, beat inmates in locations without video surveillance, fail to accurately report use of

force incidents, and conduct inadequate use of force investigations. The Nunez class is not

limited to the Subject Inmates defined herein; instead it consists of nearly all present and future

inmates confined in jails operated by the Department of Correction.1

3. CRIPA provides that the United States may intervene in any action seeking

relief from egregious or flagrant conditions of confinement that deprive inmates “of any rights,

privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States

causing them to suffer grievous harm” where “the Attorney General has reasonable cause to

believe that such deprivation is pursuant to a pattern or practice of resistance to the full

enjoyment of such rights, privileges, or immunities.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997c(a).

4. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997c(b), the Attorney General certifies to this Court

that the prerequisites to filing this Motion to Intervene have been met. The Attorney General

certifies that:

a. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997c(b)(1)(A), notice was provided to the

Honorable Bill de Blasio, Department of Correction Commissioner

Joseph Ponte, and the City’s chief legal officer Zachary Carter in the

1 The class excludes inmates at the Eric M. Taylor Center because an existing consent decree remains in effect with
respect to this jail. The class also excludes inmates in Elmhurst and Bellevue prison wards.

form of a 79-page findings letter at least 15 days prior to this Motion to

Intervene. This notice, which is attached to the Complaint-in-

Intervention, sets forth in detail: (i) the alleged conditions which

deprive the Subject Inmates of their rights, privileges, or immunities

secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States and

the alleged pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of such

rights, privileges, and immunities; (ii) the supporting facts giving rise to

the alleged conditions, including the dates and time period during which

the alleged conditions and pattern or practice of resistance occurred; and

(iii) the minimum measures which the Attorney General believes may

remedy the alleged conditions and the alleged pattern or practice of

resistance;

b. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997c(b)(1)(B), the Attorney General believes

that intervention by the United States is of general public importance

and will materially further the vindication of rights, privileges, or

immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the

United States; and

c. The Attorney General has “reasonable cause to believe” that the

deprivation of rights of the Subject Inmates is pursuant to a pattern and

practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of such rights, privileges, or

immunities, as set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 1997c(a)(1).

5. Additionally, the undersigned certify that the United States has used its best

efforts to resolve the matters raised in the Complaint-in-Intervention. Specifically, as noted

supra, on August 4, 2014, the United States provided a 79-page, written letter to the City of New

York, outlining its legal position and the factual findings resulting from its two and a half year

CRIPA investigation. On September 22, 2014, the City of New York provided a ten-page,

written response to the issues set forth in the United States’ findings letter. Over the past four

and a half months, the United States and the City of New York have discussed these matters,

including most recently together with the plaintiffs in the Nunez Action, but have been unable to

reach agreement as to lasting, verifiable, and enforceable reforms to remedy the unconstitutional

conditions set forth in the United States’ findings letter.

6. Accordingly, the United States moves to intervene in the Nunez Action. The

United States moves for intervention as of right, pursuant to Rules 24(a)(1) and 24(a)(2) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or, alternatively, for permissive intervention pursuant to Rule

24(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs and the City of New York consent to

the United States’ intervention in this action.

WHEREFORE, the United States respectfully requests that this Court enter an order:

a. Granting the United States’ Motion to Intervene;

b. Adding the United States to the caption in the Nunez Action as a full party

plaintiff-intervenor;

c. Adding the Department of Correction to the caption in the Nunez Action as a

defendant; and

d. Directing the Clerk of the Court to enter the United States’ Complaint-in-

Intervention, and allowing the Government to proceed on its claims stated

therein.

OCR text (7,347c · textlayer · 95% conf)