Polanco v. City of New York Et Al.
Polanco v. City of New York Et Al.
Polanco v. City of New York Et Al.
Defendants.
at the Rose M. Singer Center on Rikers Island. She should be alive today.
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
medical care and proper supervision, including people who, like Layleen, have
placed in solitary confinement, including those who, like Layleen, have serious
medical and/or psychiatric conditions that should render them ineligible for
solitary confinement, often for minor alleged infractions and in some cases for no
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.
called punitive or restricted housing), where they are kept in cells for more than
20 hours a day.
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.”
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
13. Layleen is dead because the City of New York and its DOC
to provide her safe housing, adequate medical care, and proper accommodation
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
Disabilities Act (“ADA”), seeking justice for Layleen and damages from the City
of New York and its employees for their violations of her rights.
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
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
Yonkers, New York, who died while incarcerated at the Rose M. Singer Center
on Rikers Island.
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.
acting under color of state law, and responsible for the care of those incarcerated
acting under color of state law, and responsible for the care of those incarcerated
Services, residing in Kings County, New York, acting under color of state law,
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
in the Dominican Republic, who immigrated to the United States as a child and
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.
the serious risks they present, including the heightened risk of suicide and death
28. The DOC, CHS, and Individual Defendants were aware that
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.
functions and impeded other major life activities, including self-care, speaking,
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
placed in the Central Punitive Segregation Unit (“CPSU”) at the Rose M. Singer
Center.
Layleen lived with epilepsy and schizophrenia, and was at heightened risk of
writing that the epilepsy presented “no acute contraindication to the RHU
[Restricted Housing Unit].” Defendant Vessell knew that Layleen lived with
had suffered injuries to her head and face. DOC and CHS personnel and the
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
the risk of death from suffocation and other hazards seizures cause.
confinement do not receive such constant monitoring, and instead are ignored
by the Defendants and, when she was checked on, her condition was ignored,
Epilepsy
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
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
seclusion puts an unobserved inmate with epilepsy at far greater risk of injury
and death.
trauma, or have a seizure while sleeping and suffocate, especially if the inmate is
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
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
most dramatic health risks of incarceration,” noting that the practice can and has
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
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
journals concluded that placing individuals with serious mental illness in solitary
68. At all relevant times, the City’s policy makers were aware of
custom, and practice, to place individuals with serious mental illnesses and
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,
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.
psychiatric prison ward at Bellevue Hospital Center, where he stayed for 38 days
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
78. These and many other cases have put the City and DOC on
notice that putting people with physical and mental disabilities into punitive
the heightened dangers facing inmates with serious medical and/or psychiatric
problems.
fired, or disciplined. Nor had any officer responsible for placing inmates with
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.
employees.
Against Defendants Vessell, Williams, Flemister, and John and Jane Does 1-25
forth herein.
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.
caused Layleen to choke to death and die alone in her cell, were deliberately
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.
City entered into arising out of deaths of inmates in solitary and punitive
segregation.
death.
for their knowing use of punitive segregation on disabled inmates, their failure
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
inmates.
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
of inmates with serious medical needs in punitive segregation caused the death
of Layleen Polanco.
Claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131 et seq.
forth herein.
The Act states that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of
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,
iii).
activities provided by the entity (with or without regard to any auxiliary aids or
modifications).
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-
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
she could not be readily observed and, in the event of a seizure, could be given
medical care.
direct and proximate result of the City’s, its agents’, and its employees’ refusal to
unequal treatment, exclusion and violations of her rights under the laws of the
United States, and she suffered the serious injuries alleged above.
Defendants as follows:
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.
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
19
Case 1:19-cv-04623 Document 1-1 Filed 08/12/19 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 20
(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
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,
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
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?
Signature: ____________________________________________________
Last Modified: 11/27/2017