Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                

Polanco v. City of New York Et Al.

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 21

Case 1:19-cv-04623 Document 1 Filed 08/12/19 Page 1 of 19 PageID #: 1

DAVID B. SHANIES LAW OFFICE


David B. Shanies
Joel A. Wertheimer
411 Lafayette Street, Sixth Floor
New York, New York 10003
(212) 951-1710 (Tel)
(212) 951-1350 (Fax)
david@shanieslaw.com
joel@shanieslaw.com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

ARACELIS POLANCO, as Administrator of the


ESTATE OF LAYLEEN CUBILETTE-POLANCO,

Plaintiff, Case No. 19-CV-4623


― against ― COMPLAINT
THE CITY OF NEW YORK, COLLEEN VESSELL, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
CHANZE WILLIAMS, KHALILAH FLEMISTER,
and JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-25,

Defendants.

Plaintiff Aracelis Polanco, as Administrator of the Estate of Layleen

Cubilette-Polanco (“Layleen”), files this Complaint against the above-captioned

Defendants and alleges as follows:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. Layleen was just 27-years-old when she died on June 7, 2019

at the Rose M. Singer Center on Rikers Island. She should be alive today.

2. Layleen was a Dominican-American, transgender woman,

who lived with epilepsy and schizophrenia.

1
Case 1:19-cv-04623 Document 1 Filed 08/12/19 Page 2 of 19 PageID #: 2


3. People incarcerated at Rikers are constantly subjected to

violence, both from correction officers and other inmates.

4. People incarcerated at Rikers are routinely denied necessary

medical care and proper supervision, including people who, like Layleen, have

conditions presenting a high risk of death or serious bodily injury.

5. People incarcerated at Rikers are frequently improperly

placed in solitary confinement, including those who, like Layleen, have serious

medical and/or psychiatric conditions that should render them ineligible for

placement in Punitive Segregation or Restricted Housing Units.

6. In particular, DOC regularly places transgender inmates in

solitary confinement, often for minor alleged infractions and in some cases for no

legitimate reason at all.

7. According to former DOC mental health staff, DOC

personnel routinely place inmates in solitary for purely pretextual reasons, to

make use of the bed space in solitary housing units.

8. These perennial problems have been brought to the City’s

and DOC’s attention again and again, including by the United States Department

of Justice; the Independent Commission on New York City Criminal Justice and

Incarceration Reform; and countless lawsuits, news reports, studies, letters, and

other communications.

2
Case 1:19-cv-04623 Document 1 Filed 08/12/19 Page 3 of 19 PageID #: 3


9. Most people incarcerated on Rikers are, like Layleen,

presumptively innocent, held in jail awaiting trial and unable to meet bail.

Layleen was incarcerated because she was unable to meet $500 bail.

10. Many incarcerated people are attacked and end up in

preventable altercations and then placed in solitary confinement (sometimes

called punitive or restricted housing), where they are kept in cells for more than

20 hours a day.

11. Conditions on Rikers Island are so bad that Homer Venters,

the former Medical Director for New York City jails, recently said that “closing

Rikers is absolutely necessary. It’s not sufficient to transform the criminal justice

system in New York City to become more humane, but it’s necessary.”

12. Numerous former DOC employees who held supervisory

positions have documented the persistent brutality and mistreatment of inmates

on Rikers Island, including Mr. Venters’s book, Life and Death in Rikers Island

(published 2019) and former Rikers assistant mental health chief Mary Buser’s

book, Lockdown on Rikers: Shocking Stories of Abuse and Injustice at New York’s

Notorious Jail (published 2015).

13. Layleen is dead because the City of New York and its DOC

and Health + Hospitals / Correctional Health Services (“CHS”) personnel failed

to provide her safe housing, adequate medical care, and proper accommodation

for her disabilities.

3
Case 1:19-cv-04623 Document 1 Filed 08/12/19 Page 4 of 19 PageID #: 4


14. Plaintiff brings this action under the Fourteenth Amendment

of the Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Section II of the Americans with

Disabilities Act (“ADA”), seeking justice for Layleen and damages from the City

of New York and its employees for their violations of her rights.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

15. This action arises under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 and

42 U.S.C. § 12131(2).

16. Jurisdiction lies in this Court under its federal question and

civil rights jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343.

17. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because

Plaintiff’s claims arose in the State of New York, all Defendants are residents of

the State of New York, and all named Defendants reside in the Eastern District of

New York.

PARTIES

18. Layleen Cubilette-Polanco was an individual residing in

Yonkers, New York, who died while incarcerated at the Rose M. Singer Center

on Rikers Island.

19. Plaintiff Arecelis Polanco is Layleen’s mother, next-of-kin,

and the Administrator of Layleen’s Estate. She is an individual residing in

Yonkers, New York.

20. Defendant City of New York is a municipality and a political

subdivision of the State of New York, existing by virtue of the laws of the State of

4
Case 1:19-cv-04623 Document 1 Filed 08/12/19 Page 5 of 19 PageID #: 5


New York. Defendant City of New York is and was at all relevant times

responsible for the policies, customs, and practices of the DOC and CHS.

21. Defendant Chanze Williams was at all relevant times a

municipal official employed by DOC, residing in Richmond County, New York,

acting under color of state law, and responsible for the care of those incarcerated

at the Rose M. Singer Center, including Layleen.

22. Defendant Khalilah Flemister was at all relevant times a

municipal official employed by DOC, residing in Kings County, New York,

acting under color of state law, and responsible for the care of those incarcerated

at the Rose M. Singer Center, including Layleen.

23. Defendant Colleen Vessell was at all relevant times a

municipal official employed by Health + Hospitals / Correctional Health

Services, residing in Kings County, New York, acting under color of state law,

and responsible for Layleen’s medical care.

24. John and Jane Does 1-25 are correction officers, captains,

deputy wardens, and jail medical staff, acting under color of state law, and

responsible for the care of those incarcerated at the Rose M. Singer Center,

including Layleen.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

25. Layleen Cubilette-Polanco was a transgender woman, born

in the Dominican Republic, who immigrated to the United States as a child and

became a naturalized citizen.

5
Case 1:19-cv-04623 Document 1 Filed 08/12/19 Page 6 of 19 PageID #: 6


26. Layleen was arrested on April 13, 2019, for misdemeanor

charges. She was sent to the Rose M. Singer Center on Rikers Island.

27. Layleen lived with schizophrenia and epilepsy, both of

which are treatable conditions, but which substantially limited a number of

Layleen’s major life activities and required heightened supervision because of

the serious risks they present, including the heightened risk of suicide and death

from seizure-related complications.

28. The DOC, CHS, and Individual Defendants were aware that

Layleen suffered from both conditions.

29. From on or about May 16, 2019 until on or about May 24,

2019, Layleen was taken to Elmhurst Hospital while in DOC custody, where she

was treated for one or more of the medical conditions described above.

30. Layleen was prescribed an anti-seizure medication to be

administered twice daily.

31. In the months preceding her death, Layleen had multiple

seizures while in DOC custody.

32. Layleen’s epilepsy substantially limited her neurological

functions and impeded other major life activities, including self-care, speaking,

communicating, concentrating, thinking, and breathing.

33. Layleen’s schizophrenia substantially limited her major life

activities, including self-care, sleeping, speaking, concentrating, thinking,

communicating, and working.

6
Case 1:19-cv-04623 Document 1 Filed 08/12/19 Page 7 of 19 PageID #: 7


34. DOC regulations purport to forbid punitive segregation

from being used on an inmate with a serious medical or psychiatric condition.

35. Epilepsy is a serious medical condition.

36. Schizophrenia is a serious psychiatric condition.

37. On or about May 30, 2019, Layleen was sentenced to twenty

days in punitive segregation for an alleged disciplinary infraction. Layleen was

placed in the Central Punitive Segregation Unit (“CPSU”) at the Rose M. Singer

Center.

38. On or about May 30, 2019, Defendant Flemister authorized

Layleen’s placement in punitive segregation. Defendant Flemister knew that

Layleen lived with epilepsy and schizophrenia, and was at heightened risk of

death or serious physical harm if placed in segregation.

39. On May 30, 2019, Defendant Vessell, a physician, completed

a form entitled “PSEG [Punitive Segregation] Review.” Defendant Vessell

authorized Layleen’s placement in punitive segregation despite her epilepsy,

writing that the epilepsy presented “no acute contraindication to the RHU

[Restricted Housing Unit].” Defendant Vessell knew that Layleen lived with

epilepsy and schizophrenia, and was at heightened risk of death or serious

physical harm if placed in segregation.

40. At or around the time of her placement in CPSU, Layleen

had suffered injuries to her head and face. DOC and CHS personnel and the

Defendants herein were aware of those injuries.

7
Case 1:19-cv-04623 Document 1 Filed 08/12/19 Page 8 of 19 PageID #: 8


41. Layleen did not receive medical care for any head injury and

did not receive any precautionary screening for the potential effects of head

trauma on her epilepsy.

42. Inmates in restricted housing, often including those with

serious physical and mental health issues, are isolated in their cells for nearly all

of their waking hours. Layleen was treated accordingly, and regularly was left

alone in a cell for many hours at a time.

43. Even when she received the amount of time out of her cell

that she was supposed to receive – which frequently did not happen – Layleen

spent the vast majority of her life in CPSU in solitary confinement, meaning that

she was locked in a small cell by herself.

44. On many days in CPSU, Layleen received two hours or less

outside of her cell.

45. On June 7, 2019, at or around 1:00 p.m., correction officers,

including Defendant Chanze Williams and Jane Doe Number 1, went to

Layleen’s cell, where she had been locked in for an hour or more.

46. The officers knocked on the cell door, but Layleen was

unresponsive.

47. The officers took no action to get Layleen medical attention

(nor to determine whether she needed medical attention).

48. Instead, the officers left Layleen alone in the cell.

8
Case 1:19-cv-04623 Document 1 Filed 08/12/19 Page 9 of 19 PageID #: 9


49. Another inmate reported hearing one of the officers remark

that Layleen was “asleep.”

50. The officers ignored the obvious risk that Layleen, who lived

with epilepsy, suffered frequent seizures, and recently suffered head trauma,

needed medical attention and could suffer serious injury or death without

intervention.

51. At or around 3:00 p.m., two correction officers and a captain

went to Layleen’s cell. Layleen remained unresponsive.

52. The officers finally entered the cell and found Layleen dead.

She had been dead so long that first responders found her body cold to the

touch.

53. Epileptics need consistent, 24-hour monitoring because of

the risk of death from suffocation and other hazards seizures cause.

54. Inmates placed in restricted housing and solitary

confinement do not receive such constant monitoring, and instead are ignored

and left in their cells for hours at a time.

55. Layleen was no different. She was checked on infrequently

by the Defendants and, when she was checked on, her condition was ignored,

even when she was found non-responsive.

Epilepsy

56. Epilepsy is a condition that affects millions of people

worldwide.

9
Case 1:19-cv-04623 Document 1 Filed 08/12/19 Page 10 of 19 PageID #: 10


57. Inability to breathe during and/or after a seizure is a

common and well-known risk factor facing people with epilepsy.

58. One of the primary instructions for rendering first aid to

someone who has suffered a seizure is to roll them onto their side. Then, people

are instructed to aid a person experiencing a seizure by raising their chin to tilt

their head back slightly; opening their airway to help them breathe; check that

nothing is blocking their airway; and, if there is an obstruction, remove it.

59. Placing inmates with epilepsy in seclusion, isolated,

restricted, or solitary confinement is very dangerous. Having a seizure while in

seclusion puts an unobserved inmate with epilepsy at far greater risk of injury

and death.

60. An inmate may experience a fall from a seizure and suffer

trauma, or have a seizure while sleeping and suffocate, especially if the inmate is

not adequately monitored.

61. The Individual Defendants were aware of these risks and

committed the acts and omissions described herein in spite of them.

Monell Allegations

62. Between 2010 and 2016, there were more than 100 deaths in

New York City jails. Former Medical Director Venters found that up to twenty

percent of those deaths each year were “jail-attributable deaths.”

10
Case 1:19-cv-04623 Document 1 Filed 08/12/19 Page 11 of 19 PageID #: 11


63. Nowhere is the risk to inmates’ safety greater than in solitary

confinement (alternatively named “punitive segregation” or “restricted housing”

by correction officials who prefer not to call it solitary confinement).

64. Dr. Venters identified solitary confinement as “one of the

most dramatic health risks of incarceration,” noting that the practice can and has

resulted in “preventable death.”

65. Dr. Venters has reported that when he and other jail medical

providers raised the “health risks” of solitary confinement with the City’s “policy

makers,” their concerns were brushed aside.

66. Dr. Venters delivered to City policy makers his medical

opinion that solitary confinement was “harmful for our patients and that we

should eliminate this practice for our patients with mental illness and

adolescents and severely limit it for all others.” The Medical Director’s

recommendation did not result in policy changes.

67. Numerous published studies and widely circulated medical

journals concluded that placing individuals with serious mental illness in solitary

confinement presented serious and unacceptable health risks.

68. At all relevant times, the City’s policy makers were aware of

these reported risks.

69. Nevertheless, the City has continued, as a matter of policy,

custom, and practice, to place individuals with serious mental illnesses and

serious medical problems in solitary confinement, including Layleen.

11
Case 1:19-cv-04623 Document 1 Filed 08/12/19 Page 12 of 19 PageID #: 12


70. Just one month before Layleen died, the City entered into a

multi-million dollar settlement over the 2014 death of Rolando Perez in DOC

custody.

71. Perez died two days after being put in solitary confinement.

He had suffered from epilepsy since he was a teen and relied on medications to

control it.

72. Given his epilepsy, Perez never should have been placed in

solitary confinement; but because DOC’s solitary confinement policy permits it,

Perez was placed in segregation, where he died from complications of a seizure.

73. In September 2016, the City entered into a multi-million

dollar settlement with the family of Victor Woods.

74. Woods also suffered from seizures while in DOC custody.

He died from complications of a seizure while correction officers failed to seek

medical attention for him.

75. In September 2016, the City settled a multi-million dollar

lawsuit with the family of Bradley Ballard. Mr. Ballard was taken into custody in

June 2013 on a parole violation for his failure to report an address change. Mr.

Ballard was deprived of medication for his diabetes and schizophrenia.

76. At one point during his incarceration, he was sent to the

psychiatric prison ward at Bellevue Hospital Center, where he stayed for 38 days

before being sent back to the mental health unit at Rikers.

12
Case 1:19-cv-04623 Document 1 Filed 08/12/19 Page 13 of 19 PageID #: 13


77. On September 4, 2016, Ballard was locked in his cell as

punishment for an alleged infraction, where he was denied food, water, and

medical and mental health care. Seven days later, Ballard was found dead in his

cell. His death was ruled a homicide.

78. These and many other cases have put the City and DOC on

notice that putting people with physical and mental disabilities into punitive

segregation, without monitoring, creates a risk of death or serious injury.

79. In December 2014, the Prisoners’ Rights project of the Legal

Aid Society submitted a report to the City as testimony, available at

http://bit.ly/deathisinsolitary, providing extensive information about the

dangers facing inmates confined in restricted or segregation housing, including

the heightened dangers facing inmates with serious medical and/or psychiatric

problems.

80. No adequate remedial action has been put in place to rectify

the dangers faced by disabled inmates in punitive segregation.

81. Prior to Layleen’s death, no officer responsible for

formulating the policies allowing inmates with serious medical and/or

psychiatric problems to be placed in punitive segregation had been suspended,

fired, or disciplined. Nor had any officer responsible for placing inmates with

serious medical and/or psychiatric problems to be placed in punitive

segregation been suspended, fired, or disciplined.

82. The City turns a blind eye to correction officers who violate

13
Case 1:19-cv-04623 Document 1 Filed 08/12/19 Page 14 of 19 PageID #: 14


commitments it has made to the Federal government and its citizens.

83. The failure to discipline correction officers for criminal and

unconstitutional actions leads to the lawless and dangerous actions of its

employees.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

42 U.S.C. § 1983, Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Against Defendants Vessell, Williams, Flemister, and John and Jane Does 1-25

84. Plaintiff realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set

forth herein.

85. The Individual Defendants were at all relevant times New

York City employees responsible for Layleen’s custody and care.

86. The Individual Defendants knew, were deliberately

indifferent to, and/or recklessly disregarded the fact that that Layleen faced a

substantial risk of serious harm if she was left unmonitored for even 30 minutes

at a time.

87. The acts and omissions of the Individual Defendants, which

caused Layleen to choke to death and die alone in her cell, were deliberately

indifferent to a known and substantial risk of serious injury to her.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

42 U.S.C. § 1983, Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Against Defendant City of New York

14
Case 1:19-cv-04623 Document 1 Filed 08/12/19 Page 15 of 19 PageID #: 15


88. Plaintiff realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set

forth herein.

89. Defendant City was put on notice of the risk of inaction by

the numerous deaths to mentally ill and disabled inmates in solitary

confinement, as evidenced by the numerous multi-million dollar settlements the

City entered into arising out of deaths of inmates in solitary and punitive

segregation.

90. Correction officers and DOC employees repeatedly ignore

the medical needs of inmates placed in punitive segregation, leading to their

death.

91. Correction officers and DOC employees are not disciplined

for their knowing use of punitive segregation on disabled inmates, their failure

to monitor disabled inmates in punitive segregation when medically necessary,

and their complete disregard for the medical needs of inmates in punitive

segregation.

92. The City, by its failure to discipline, supervise, and train its

employees while on notice of the risks faced by inmates with medical needs in

punitive segregation, was deliberately indifferent to the constitutional rights of

inmates.

93. The City exhibited deliberate indifference because it failed to

act when the need for more or better supervision to protect against constitutional

15
Case 1:19-cv-04623 Document 1 Filed 08/12/19 Page 16 of 19 PageID #: 16


violations was obvious. The City tacitly authorized the pattern of misconduct

witnessed here. Nothing was done to investigate or forestall such incidents.

94. The City’s deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights

of inmates with serious medical needs in punitive segregation caused the death

of Layleen Polanco.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

Claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131 et seq.

Refusal to Provide a Reasonable Accommodation with Deliberate Indifference to


Serious Medical Needs and Inmate Health and Safety

Against All Defendants

95. Plaintiff realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set

forth herein.

96. Congress enacted the Americans with Disabilities Act “to

provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of

discrimination against individuals with disabilities.” 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(1).

The Act states that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of

such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the

services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to

discrimination by any such entity.”

97. Due to the severe seizures she regularly suffered, Ms.

Cubilette-Polanco disabled as defined under 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)(A), because she

suffered a neurological impairment that substantially limited one or more of her

16
Case 1:19-cv-04623 Document 1 Filed 08/12/19 Page 17 of 19 PageID #: 17


major life activities, including, but not limited to, her ability to walk, eat, work,

communicate, and comprehend her surroundings. Epilepsy, a condition

characterized by seizures, has been determined to be a condition that “will, at

minimum, substantially limit [a] major life activit[y]” because “epilepsy

substantially limits neurological function” and will “virtually always be found to

impose a substantial limitation on a major life activity.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(ii-

iii).

98. Plaintiff was a qualified individual with a disability within

the meaning of Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12131(2): “Qualified individual”

means an individual with a disability who meets the essential eligibility

requirements for the receipt of services or the participation in programs or

activities provided by the entity (with or without regard to any auxiliary aids or

modifications).

99. She had a right not to be discriminated against by the City of

New York on the basis of her disability. The violations of the Act alleged herein

were committed by the other Defendants while acting within the course and

scope of their employment and/or agency of the City of New York. The City of

New York is liable for the actions of those agents and employees.

100. The City of New York and its agents were aware of the need

for reasonable accommodation for her seizures, because they were aware of anti-

convulsant medication taken by Ms. Cubilette-Polanco and provided anti-

convulsant medication to her.

17
Case 1:19-cv-04623 Document 1 Filed 08/12/19 Page 18 of 19 PageID #: 18


101. The City of New York and its agents and employees acted

intentionally and/or with deliberate indifference to Ms. Polanco’s need for a

reasonable accommodation by placing her in the restricted housing unit, where

she could not be readily observed and, in the event of a seizure, could be given

medical care.

102. Layleen suffered a seizure while in her cell and died as a

direct and proximate result of the City’s, its agents’, and its employees’ refusal to

provide Layleen with a reasonable accommodation for her disability

103. Had she been reasonably accommodated, she would have

been detained in a readily observable cell, and would be alive.

104. As a result of the refusal to provide her with a reasonable

accommodation for her disability, Ms. Cubilette-Polanco suffered discrimination,

unequal treatment, exclusion and violations of her rights under the laws of the

United States, and she suffered the serious injuries alleged above.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Aracelis Polanco, on behalf of the Estate of

Layleen Cubilette-Polanco, demands judgment against the above-captioned

Defendants as follows:

a. For compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial;

b. For punitive damages against the individual defendants in an


amount to be determined at trial;

c. For reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and disbursements, under 42


U.S.C. § 1988, 42 U.S.C. § 12205, and other applicable laws;

18
Case 1:19-cv-04623 Document 1 Filed 08/12/19 Page 19 of 19 PageID #: 19


d. For pre- and post-judgment interest as allowed by law; and

e. For such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.

Dated: August 8, 2019


New York, New York
DAVID B. SHANIES LAW OFFICE

By:
David B. Shanies
Joel A. Wertheimer
411 Lafayette Street, Sixth Floor
New York, New York 10003
(212) 951-1710 (Tel)
(212) 951-1350 (Fax)
david@shanieslaw.com
joel@shanieslaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff Arecelis Polanco


Administrator, Estate of Layleen Cubilette-Polanco

19
Case 1:19-cv-04623 Document 1-1 Filed 08/12/19 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 20

JS 44 (Rev. 02/19) CIVIL COVER SHEET


The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS


ARECELIS POLANCO, As Administrator of the THE CITY OF NEW YORK, COLLEEN VESSELL, CHANZE WILLIAMS,
Estate of Layleen Cubilette-Polanco, KHALILAH FLEMISTER, and JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-25,
WESTCHESTER
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
David B. Shanies Law Office
411 Lafayette Street, Sixth Floor
New York, New York 10003
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
’ 1 U.S. Government X 3
’ Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State ’ 1 ’ 1 Incorporated or Principal Place ’ 4 ’ 4
of Business In This State

’ 2 U.S. Government ’ 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State ’ 2 ’ 2 Incorporated and Principal Place ’ 5 ’ 5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State

Citizen or Subject of a ’ 3 ’ 3 Foreign Nation ’ 6 ’ 6


Foreign Country
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
’ 110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY ’ 625 Drug Related Seizure ’ 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 ’ 375 False Claims Act
’ 120 Marine ’ 310 Airplane ’ 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 ’ 423 Withdrawal ’ 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
’ 130 Miller Act ’ 315 Airplane Product Product Liability ’ 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(a))
’ 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability ’ 367 Health Care/ ’ 400 State Reapportionment
’ 150 Recovery of Overpayment ’ 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS ’ 410 Antitrust
& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury ’ 820 Copyrights ’ 430 Banks and Banking
’ 151 Medicare Act ’ 330 Federal Employers’ Product Liability ’ 830 Patent ’ 450 Commerce
’ 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability ’ 368 Asbestos Personal ’ 840 Trademark ’ 460 Deportation
Student Loans ’ 340 Marine Injury Product ’ 470 Racketeer Influenced and
(Excludes Veterans) ’ 345 Marine Product Liability LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY Corrupt Organizations
’ 153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY ’ 710 Fair Labor Standards ’ 861 HIA (1395ff) ’ 480 Consumer Credit
of Veteran’s Benefits ’ 350 Motor Vehicle ’ 370 Other Fraud Act ’ 862 Black Lung (923) ’ 490 Cable/Sat TV
’ 160 Stockholders’ Suits ’ 355 Motor Vehicle ’ 371 Truth in Lending ’ 720 Labor/Management ’ 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) ’ 850 Securities/Commodities/
’ 190 Other Contract Product Liability ’ 380 Other Personal Relations ’ 864 SSID Title XVI Exchange
’ 195 Contract Product Liability ’ 360 Other Personal Property Damage ’ 740 Railway Labor Act ’ 865 RSI (405(g)) ’ 890 Other Statutory Actions
’ 196 Franchise Injury ’ 385 Property Damage ’ 751 Family and Medical ’ 891 Agricultural Acts
’ 362 Personal Injury - Product Liability Leave Act ’ 893 Environmental Matters
Medical Malpractice ’ 790 Other Labor Litigation ’ 895 Freedom of Information
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS ’ 791 Employee Retirement FEDERAL TAX SUITS Act
’ 210 Land Condemnation X
’ 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: Income Security Act ’ 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff ’ 896 Arbitration
’ 220 Foreclosure ’ 441 Voting ’ 463 Alien Detainee or Defendant) ’ 899 Administrative Procedure
’ 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment ’ 442 Employment ’ 510 Motions to Vacate ’ 871 IRS—Third Party Act/Review or Appeal of
’ 240 Torts to Land ’ 443 Housing/ Sentence 26 USC 7609 Agency Decision
’ 245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations ’ 530 General ’ 950 Constitutionality of
’ 290 All Other Real Property ’ 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - ’ 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION State Statutes
Employment Other: ’ 462 Naturalization Application
’ 446 Amer. w/Disabilities - ’ 540 Mandamus & Other ’ 465 Other Immigration
Other ’ 550 Civil Rights Actions
’ 448 Education ’ 555 Prison Condition
’ 560 Civil Detainee -
Conditions of
Confinement
V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
X
’ 1 Original ’ 2 Removed from ’ 3 Remanded from ’ 4 Reinstated or ’ 5 Transferred from ’ 6 Multidistrict
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District Litigation
(specify)
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
42 U.S.C. § 1983, Americans with Disabilities Act
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:
Deliberate Indifference, Americans with Disabilities Act
VII. REQUESTED IN ’ CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. JURY DEMAND: X
’ Yes ’ No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
08/12/2019

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE


Case 1:19-cv-04623 Document 1-1 Filed 08/12/19 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 21
CERTIFICATION OF ARBITRATION ELIGIBILITY
Local Arbitration Rule 83. provides that with certain exceptions, actions seeking money damages only in an amount not in excess of $150,000,
exclusive of interest and costs, are eligible for compulsory arbitration. The amount of damages is presumed to be below the threshold amount unless a
certification to the contrary is filed.

David B. Shanies
I, __________________________________________, Plaintiff
counsel for____________________________, do hereby certify that the above captioned civil action is ineligible for
compulsory arbitration for the following reason(s):
X
monetary damages sought are in excess of $150,000, exclusive of interest and costs,

the complaint seeks injunctive relief,

the matter is otherwise ineligible for the following reason

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT - FEDERAL RULES CIVIL PROCEDURE 7.1


Identify any parent corporation and any publicly held corporation that owns 10% or more or its stocks:

RELATED CASE STATEMENT (Section VIII on the Front of this Form)


Please list all cases that are arguably related pursuant to Division of Business Rule 50.3.1 in Section VIII on the front of this form. Rule 50.3.1 (a) provides that “A civil case is “related”
to another civil case for purposes of this guideline when, because of the similarity of facts and legal issues or because the cases arise from the same transactions or events, a
substantial saving of judicial resources is likely to result from assigning both cases to the same judge and magistrate judge.” Rule 50.3.1 (b) provides that “ A civil case shall not be
deemed “related” to another civil case merely because the civil case: (A) involves identical legal issues, or (B) involves the same parties.” Rule 50.3.1 (c) further provides that
“Presumptively, and subject to the power of a judge to determine otherwise pursuant to paragraph (d), civil cases shall not be deemed to be “related” unless both cases are still
pending before the court.”

NY-E DIVISION OF BUSINESS RULE 50.1(d)(2)

1.) Is the civil action being filed in the Eastern District removed from a New York State Court located in Nassau or Suffolk
County? Yes X No

2.) If you answered “no” above:


a) Did the events or omissions giving rise to the claim or claims, or a substantial part thereof, occur in Nassau or Suffolk
County? Yes X No

b) Did the events or omissions giving rise to the claim or claims, or a substantial part thereof, occur in the Eastern
District? Yes X No

c) If this is a Fair Debt Collection Practice Act case, specify the County in which the offending communication was
received:______________________________.

If your answer to question 2 (b) is “No,” does the defendant (or a majority of the defendants, if there is more than one) reside in Nassau or
Suffolk County, or, in an interpleader action, does the claimant (or a majority of the claimants, if there is more than one) reside in Nassau or
X
Suffolk County?___________________________________
(Note: A corporation shall be considered a resident of the County in which it has the most significant contacts).

BAR ADMISSION

I am currently admitted in the Eastern District of New York and currently a member in good standing of the bar of this court.

X Yes No

Are you currently the subject of any disciplinary action (s) in this or any other state or federal court?

Yes (If yes, please explain X No

I certify the accuracy of all information provided above.

Signature: ____________________________________________________
Last Modified: 11/27/2017

You might also like