Class Action Lawsuit Hits Post-Release Date Incarceration of Mentally Ill in NY State
A federal class action suit brought against the state claims officials are illegally keeping mentally ill inmates behind bars because of a shortage of appropriate post-release housing.
January 23, 2019 at 03:44 PM
4 minute read
Indigent inmates with significant mental health issues are forced to remain incarcerated past their release dates because of a lack of community-based housing available from the state, according to a new class action filed Wednesday in Manhattan federal court.
The complaint alleges that the failure of two state agencies—the Office of Mental Health and the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision—have effectively, and illegally, extended the plaintiffs' period of imprisonment by months and sometimes years because the state has not ensured that enough supportive housing is available upon release.
Despite serving their time, the plaintiffs say they remain locked in secure prison facilities under the same restrictions as any other prisoner, including infractions that can lead to solitary confinement or even the revocation of a previously approved release.
According to the complaint, approximately 2,050 people with serious mental health issues are discharged every year. OMH takes the lead in working with these inmates who may be homeless upon release to find a suitable residency. DOCCS, which is involved in the selection process, has final say over whether a proposed location, such as a homeless shelter, has the appropriate services to support the inmate's needs.
According to the suit, proposed references are often rejected for these reasons. But in doing so, those inmates with serious mental health issues that the state believes will become homeless upon release are left with a single option for housing identified by OMH. Unless and until that housing option becomes available, these inmates are forced to stay behind bars despite having served their time.
According to Stefen Short, staff attorney for the Legal Aid Society's Prisoners Rights Project, the situation shows the “woefully insufficient” amount of appropriate housing provided for by the state, despite state law mandating prisoners with serious mental health issues be released into appropriate housing.
“OMH is not meeting that need,” he said. “That's really what's causing it.”
A spokesman for DOCCS did not respond to a request for comment.
In a statement, a spokeswoman for OMH said the agency couldn't comment on the specifics of the lawsuit. She did, however, defend the state's overall handling of support for people with mental illnesses. The state invests close to $400 million a year on community-based housing, including more than 44,000 units statewide for the population.
She went on to note that a commitment by the state for some 6,000 or more units of supportive housing for homeless individuals the state plans to construct by 2021. Of these, 120 are expected to be reserved for individuals released from incarceration.
The suit makes claims for two classes of individuals. The first, a general class, are those individuals who continue to be incarcerated past their release dates, including the end of their prison sentences, approved conditional release dates, and open dates for parole release. This class makes claims against the state under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
The second subclass of individuals are those who remain behind bars past the maximum expiration dates of their court-imposed prison sentences. This class brings additional constitutional claims against the state under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
According to the Legal Aid Society's Short, the goal of the litigation is to force the state to allocate the appropriate amount of resources to ensure inmates can be released in a timely way, into appropriate housing that offers the help they need.
“We're really seeking an expansion of the community-based mental health system,” he said.
Legal Aid was joined by Disability Rights New York in filing the lawsuit, G. v. Cuomo, 19-cv-00639.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllNY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
The American Disabilities Act, Sovereign Immunity and Individual Liability
7 minute readGE Agrees to $362.5M Deal to End Shareholder Claims Over Power, Insurance Risks
2 minute readJudge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
Trending Stories
- 1Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 2Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 3NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 4A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 5Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250