Peoples v. Fischer et al

Filing 329

OPINION AND ORDER re: 315 FINAL MOTION for Settlement Approval. filed by Dewayne Richardson, Tonja Fenton, Leroy Peoples. This Settlement Agreement represents a significant step toward improving the conditions of solitary confineme nt throughout New York State. Nonetheless, it could not and did not address every problem experienced by prisoners in general or in solitary confinement in particular. Further reforms are likely to follow, especially when the Attorney General, repre senting the people of New York, has demonstrated his strong commitment to improving the conditions of confinement for prisoners within the State's custody. This litigation, and the way it has been handled by all of the attorneys, is the best ex ample of the power of impact litigation to redress conditions that affect the most vulnerable members of our society. Another benefit of the successful resolution of this case is that it will undoubtedly inspire other members of the legal community to accept representation of individuals like Mr. Peoples, Mr. Richardson, and Ms. Fenton - who, with the help of outstanding counsel, were able to bring about the system-wide result that the Court approves today. For the foregoing reasons, the Joint Motion for Final Approval of Settlement is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this motion (Dkt. No. 315). (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 3/31/2016) (kgo)

Dewayne Richardson, also appearing pro se, was joined with Peoples’ case.
Similarly to Peoples, Richardson was sentenced to three years’ solitary
confinement for maintaining documents in his cell that were designated as
contraband and related conduct. Also in March, 2013, a pro se complaint
previously filed by Tonja Fenton was joined with Peoples’ case.2 Fenton had sued
DOCCS after being sentenced to two years’ solitary confinement for three
infractions: (1) helping another inmate purchase personal hair care appliances and
sneakers; (2) reporting a sexual assault that was later deemed unsubstantiated; and
(3) sending a food sample to a court in support of a lawsuit she filed alleging that
corrections officers had retaliated against her by tampering with her food.
Five years after Peoples filed his initial complaint, an historic
settlement was reached on behalf of thousands of prisoners, in this class action
lawsuit challenging solitary confinement practices across the New York State
prison system.3 This settlement, which I approve today, will greatly reduce the
frequency, duration, and severity of solitary confinement in New York State
2

Fenton, who was released from custody in March, 2014, attended the
March 28, 2016 Fairness Hearing in this case.
3

See Proposed Settlement Agreement (“Settlement Agreement”), Ex. 1
to Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law in Support of Joint Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class-Action Settlement, Conditional Certification of the Settlement
Class, Approval and Distribution of the Notice of Settlement, and Appointment of
Plaintiffs’ Counsel as Class Counsel (“Pl. Preliminary Mem.”).
-2-

enumerated offenses.27 Under this new scheme, for example, possession of certain
documents prohibited by prison regulations — conduct that formed a basis of
Peoples and Richardson’s original three-year SHU sentences — would be
punishable by no more than thirty days of confinement to one’s own cell, not a
SHU.28 For all of the incidents on which Fenton’s two-year SHU sentence was
based, under the new scheme, she would have received no more than ninety days’
SHU and 150 days’ confinement to her own cell.29
Additionally, the Settlement Agreement provides for SHU-Alternative
Programs designed to address the underlying causes of an inmate’s disciplinary
issues, including programs for special needs inmates, juvenile inmates, and inmates

27

See Settlement Agreement at 42-43. See also 12/8/15 DOCCS
Revised Guidelines (Bates Nos. S048164-S048180).
28

See 3/28/16 Tr. at 9:4-6; id. at 9:20-25 (“Prior to this litigation,
[DOCCS] had no comprehensive [SHU] sentencing guidelines on an infraction-byinfraction basis; and, as a result of both the Interim Agreement and . . . [the final
Settlement Agreement], a comprehensive set of sentencing guidelines for every
infraction [is now in place].”) (Plaintiffs’ Counsel Taylor Pendergrass); 12/8/15
DOCCS Revised Guidelines at Bates Nos. S048168, S048175. Peoples’ three-year
SHU sentence was also based on a violation of facility correspondence procedures.
Under the new scheme, he would have received no more than ninety days’ SHU
for this conduct. See 12/8/15 DOCCS Revised Guidelines at Bates Nos. S048179.
29

See 12/8/15 DOCCS Revised Guidelines at Bates Nos. S048166,
S048168, S048172, S048178, S048179.
-13-