Lawsuit claims NYS prisons violate the Constitution by denying inmates legal counsel access
ROCHESTER, N.Y. (WROC) — The Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) is being sued by the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) over claims the Prisoners' Legal Services (PLS) has been unable to communicate openly with clients incarcerated at DOCCS facilities amid the strikes.
Correctional officers at nearly all New York State prisons have been on strike since Feb. 17, calling for safer working conditions and a repeal of the HALT Act. As a result of these unsanctioned strikes, visitation was initially canceled at several striking facilities, a move that has since been modified, with safety enhancements and requirements for visitors added, including the use of body scanners for folks looking to visit DOCCS facilities.
This new lawsuit, filed on behalf of PLS on Tuesday, claims that since the strikes started, inmates have been denied proper access to legal representation by PLS.
'PLS has been unable to speak securely to many of its current and prospective clients, despite reports that people on the inside cannot access medicine, healthcare, and food, that incarcerated individuals are being held in solitary confinement, that assaults within the prison are going unaddressed by staff, and that at least seven people have died, among other deprivations,' the lawsuit stated.
15 now on leave after inmate death at Mid-State prison
The strikes are nearing the three-week mark, despite a deal struck that includes penalties for those who've continued to strike after March 1.
In one example, the lawsuit claimed one of PLS' clients was assaulted by correctional staff at the Mid-State Correctional Facility this weekend.
'PLS attorneys have been attempting to have a legal call with a client at Mid-State Correctional Facility, who has a March 20, 2025 deadline for a notice of appeal in a work release challenge in state court. On March 3, his PLS attorney received a report that this client was assaulted by members of the prison's correctional staff on or around Friday, Feb. 28, or Saturday, March 1,' the lawsuit claimed.
Of the reported deaths of incarcerated individuals in recent weeks, the lawsuit claimed that the death of one inmate in particular, Jonathan Grant at Auburn Correctional Facility, was the direct result of his medical help requests being denied. It's alleged the 61-year-old man had several strokes, including at least one in the week prior to his death, the lawsuit stated.
The lawsuit claimed PLS clients at DOCCS facilities have been unable to schedule legal visits since Feb. 18.
'The suspension of legal calls at several DOCCS facilities, including but not limited to Attica, Auburn, Franklin, Marcy and Midstate, is indefinite. Legal visits are indefinitely suspended at those facilities and many more,' the lawsuit stated.
According to the lawsuit, these actions violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The lawsuit is asking for a reversal of these limitations and award costs and reasonable attorneys' fees.
News 8 reached out to DOCCS for comment but officials were unable to provide a statement citing ongoing litigation.
Read the full lawsuit below:
doccs-lawsuitDownload
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Brighton to hold bike giveaway at Bike Rodeo
BRIGHTON, N.Y. (WROC) – The Brighton Police Department will be hosting a Bike Rodeo where members of the community will get the opportunity to test their skills, learn the rules of the road, and get a bike safety checkup Sunday for Bike Safety Day. The event will be held at Brighton High School by Twelve Corners Presbyterian in the back parking lot at 10 a.m. Attendees are asked to arrive at 9:45 a.m. There will also be a giveaway where people will be able to go home with safety materials and new bike helmets. Pre-registered participants will be able to enter a drawing for a free bike. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
12 hours ago
- Yahoo
Critics want U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi disbarred, but at what cost?
The Florida Bar on Friday dismissed a complaint brought by a coalition of about 70 liberal-leaning and moderate law professors, attorneys and former Florida Supreme Court justices against U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi. The complaint accuses Bondi, Florida's former attorney general, of violating her ethical duties in her current job. As the Miami Herald reported, the complaint claims Bondi 'has sought to compel Department of Justice lawyers to violate their ethical obligations under the guise of 'zealous advocacy.'' While Bondi may have violated ethical rules — that's unclear — disbarring a U.S. attorney general is extreme and could be a slippery slope. The move would no doubt be seen, perhaps rightfully so, as political retribution, and that would only add more fuel to the raging dumpster fire of our partisan politics these days. The complaint outlined three instances in which the coalition said Bondi's conduct violated Florida Bar rules and longstanding norms of the Justice Department. In one instance, they said, she fired a seasoned immigration lawyer who the Trump administration said sabotaged the case in the mistaken deportation of a Maryland man to El Salvador. Another instance cited: A longtime federal prosecutor in the District of Columbia resigned rather than carry out enforcement orders that she said were unsupported by evidence. A third example: Several senior federal prosecutors in New York and Washington resigned after they refused to follow a Justice Department order to drop corruption charges against New York Mayor Eric Adams. The Bar rejected the complaint Friday, as it had done with two previous complaints about Bondi by the same group, and cited a jurisdictional issue. It said it 'does not investigate or prosecute sitting officers appointed under the U.S. Constitution while they are in office.' The group includes two retired Florida Supreme Court justices, Barbara J. Pariente and Peggy A. Quince. Make no mistake: Bondi is deeply political. And she has shown her commitment to carry out President Donald Trump's agenda at all costs. Bondi has made it clear that the president's priorities and the DOJ's mission are, in her view, one and the same. This is a break in the fire wall that has long existed between the presidency and the Justice Department. But politicizing the law — or the Bar — isn't the answer, no matter which side is doing it. Ethical standards must be enforced. That's a cornerstone of the legal profession. But it's hypocritical to condemn Bondi's politicization of the DOJ while attempting a similar act via the Bar. We recognize that Trump's Justice Department is by design, political. And Bondi's actions have been extremely partisan — including when she placed the DOJ attorney on leave in the case of the Maryland man who had been wrongly deported a man to El Salvador. 'At my direction, every Department of Justice attorney is required to zealously advocate on behalf of the United States,' Bondi said in a statement. 'Any attorney who fails to abide by this direction will face consequences.' The Florida Bar exists to ensure the integrity of the legal system is protected – not act as a political referee. It's understandable that some feel justified challenging Bondi's standing as a lawyer. Bondi's conduct does warrant scrutiny, and she holds an enormous amount of power as the U.S. attorney general. But the uncertainty of the times shouldn't be a reason to use the law to punish ideological opponents, even if we think the other side does it, here to send the letter.
Yahoo
17 hours ago
- Yahoo
US Supreme Court to review death row inmate's intellectual disability ruling
By John Kruzel WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Friday to hear an appeal by Alabama officials of a judicial decision that a man convicted of a 1997 murder is intellectually disabled - a finding that spared him from the death penalty - as they press ahead with the Republican-governed state's bid to execute him. A lower court ruled that Joseph Clifton Smith is intellectually disabled based on its analysis of his IQ test scores and expert testimony. Under a 2002 Supreme Court precedent, executing an intellectually disabled person violates the U.S. Constitution's Eighth Amendment bar on cruel and unusual punishment. The justices are due to hear the case in their next term, which starts in October. Smith, now 54, was convicted and sentenced to death for the 1997 murder of a man named Durk Van Dam in Alabama's Mobile County. Smith fatally beat the man with a hammer and saw in order to steal his boots, some tools and $140, according to evidence in the case. The victim's body was found in his mud-bound Ford Ranger truck in an isolated, wooded area. The Supreme Court's 2002 precedent in a case called Atkins v. Virginia barred executing intellectually disabled people. President Donald Trump's administration backed Alabama's appeal in the case. At issue in Smith's case is whether and how courts may consider the cumulative effect of multiple intelligence quotient (IQ) scores in assessing a death row inmate's intellectual disability. Like many states, conservative-leaning Alabama considers evidence of IQ test scores of 70 or below as part of the standard for determining intellectual disability. Supreme Court rulings in 2014 and 2017 allowed courts to consider IQ score ranges that are close to 70 along with other evidence of intellectual disability, such as testimony of "adaptive deficits." Smith had five IQ test scores, the lowest of which was 72. A federal judge noted that Smith's score could be as low as 69, given the standard of error of plus or minus three points. The judge then found that Smith had significant deficits from an early age in social and interpersonal skills, independent living and academics. The Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the judge's conclusions in 2023, setting aside Smith's death sentence. This prompted Alabama officials to file their first of two appeals to the Supreme Court in the case. In November, the justices threw out the 11th Circuit's decision, saying that the lower court's evaluation of Smith's IQ scores can be read two ways, and requires clarification. Ten days later, the 11th Circuit issued an opinion clarifying that its evaluation was based on "a holistic approach to multiple IQ scores" that also considered additional relevant evidence, including expert testimony. This prompted a second appeal by Alabama officials to the Supreme Court. Alabama in its filing to the Supreme Court argued that the lower courts in the case applied the wrong legal standard in establishing Smith's intellectual disability and urged the justices to take up the appeal to provide clarity on the issue. Friday's action by the court was unexpected. The court had planned to release it on Monday along with its other regularly scheduled orders, but a software glitch on Friday prematurely sent email notifications concerning the court's decision in the case. "As a result, the court is issuing that order list now," said court spokesperson Patricia McCabe. It is not the first time the court has inadvertently disclosed action in sensitive cases. Last year, an apparent draft of a ruling in a case involving emergency abortion access in Idaho was briefly uploaded to the court's website before being taken down. That disclosure represented an embarrassment for the top U.S. judicial body, coming two years after the draft of a blockbuster ruling rolling back abortion rights was leaked.
