Case in Point
Mon, 22 Jun 2009 12:31:00
Supreme Court Overrules Assembly, Saves Prison Litigators
Haywood v. Drown
Decided by: United States Supreme Court, May 26
Prisoners seem to have a comparative advantage at two things—license plates and lawsuits. Unfortunately for locked-up legal beagles in New York, the State Assembly only wants the former and, for many years, has sought to limit prisoner litigation. Chief among the legislature’s efforts has been Section 24 of the Penal Law. Enacted in the late-1970s, Section 24 prevents the state’s Supreme Courts from hearing any civil rights claims by prisoners (the most popular claims). Instead, all claims are adjudicated by the Court of Claims.
Unsurprisingly, New York’s Court of Claims is an inhospitable place for prisoner-plaintiffs. They have no right to a jury trial and no access to punitive damages. And the court has no power to stop ongoing civil rights violations.
In many ways, Section 24 was designed for people like Keith Haywood, an inmate at the Attica Correctional Facility. In 2005, Haywood sued several prison guards after he assaulted a guard and failed a urinalysis test for drug use. Haywood said abuse by prison guards led to a “minor injury to his left pinkie finger” and that guards were conspiring to deprive him of his civil rights. He prepared a lawsuit alleging violations of New York and federal law.
Ignoring Section 24’s requirement to file his lawsuit in the Court of Claims, Haywood filed in state Supreme Court. Predictably, his case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Appellate Division and the Court of Appeals affirmed without much fanfare.
Then the United States Supreme Court stepped in with an opinion.
Last month, in a 5-4 decision written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the high court reversed the New York Court of Appeals for the first time in a decade and sided with Haywood. The Court said that the Assembly had violated the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution when it passed Section 24. Justice Stevens explained that the state’s rules effectively relieve state officials from all liability under federal law if a prisoner is suing in state court. Thus, Section 24 contravened “Congress’ judgment that all persons who violate federal rights … shall be liable for damages.” The Court concluded that New York may not “relieve congestion in its courts by declaring a whole category of federal claims to be frivolous.”
“Not Our Problem”
Pyke v. Cuomo
Decided by: Second Circuit Federal Appeals Court, May 27
In the late 1980s, faced with miserable economic prospects and high unemployment, numerous members of the Mohawk tribe of Akwesasne turned to illegal gambling to change their fortunes. The underground enterprise grew rapidly, and this Mohawk reservation bordering Canada was soon rife with criminal activity. Tribe members divided into pro- and anti-gambling communities. As time passed, the situation turned violent, with pro-gambling forces known as the “Warrior Society” threatening those who opposed the casinos.
After the United States government raided the illegal casinos in 1989, New York State Police ceased patrolling the reservation, believing the situation had improved. But the casinos reappeared and tensions again flared. Despite pleas from the anti-gambling community and a request from the federal government, the state police refused to intervene, saying the problem involved tribe governance. Only after anti-gambling residents had fled their homes and two young men were killed in a gunfight did officers reenter to end the violence.
In an unsigned opinion, the court rejected the notion that the state police stopped patrolling the reservation for reasons of racial animus. The court said the decision to not intervene was a policy “aimed at an area, not a racial class.” While the court acknowledged that “geography and race are inevitably intertwined on a Native American reservation,” it said there was not enough evidence to prove discriminatory intent by the police. Absent intentional racism, even a policy that had a discriminatory impact on the tribe was not a constitutional violation.
Haywood v. Drown
Decided by: United States Supreme Court, May 26
Prisoners seem to have a comparative advantage at two things—license plates and lawsuits. Unfortunately for locked-up legal beagles in New York, the State Assembly only wants the former and, for many years, has sought to limit prisoner litigation. Chief among the legislature’s efforts has been Section 24 of the Penal Law. Enacted in the late-1970s, Section 24 prevents the state’s Supreme Courts from hearing any civil rights claims by prisoners (the most popular claims). Instead, all claims are adjudicated by the Court of Claims.
Unsurprisingly, New York’s Court of Claims is an inhospitable place for prisoner-plaintiffs. They have no right to a jury trial and no access to punitive damages. And the court has no power to stop ongoing civil rights violations.
In many ways, Section 24 was designed for people like Keith Haywood, an inmate at the Attica Correctional Facility. In 2005, Haywood sued several prison guards after he assaulted a guard and failed a urinalysis test for drug use. Haywood said abuse by prison guards led to a “minor injury to his left pinkie finger” and that guards were conspiring to deprive him of his civil rights. He prepared a lawsuit alleging violations of New York and federal law.
Ignoring Section 24’s requirement to file his lawsuit in the Court of Claims, Haywood filed in state Supreme Court. Predictably, his case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Appellate Division and the Court of Appeals affirmed without much fanfare.
Then the United States Supreme Court stepped in with an opinion.
Last month, in a 5-4 decision written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the high court reversed the New York Court of Appeals for the first time in a decade and sided with Haywood. The Court said that the Assembly had violated the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution when it passed Section 24. Justice Stevens explained that the state’s rules effectively relieve state officials from all liability under federal law if a prisoner is suing in state court. Thus, Section 24 contravened “Congress’ judgment that all persons who violate federal rights … shall be liable for damages.” The Court concluded that New York may not “relieve congestion in its courts by declaring a whole category of federal claims to be frivolous.”
“Not Our Problem”
Pyke v. Cuomo
Decided by: Second Circuit Federal Appeals Court, May 27
In the late 1980s, faced with miserable economic prospects and high unemployment, numerous members of the Mohawk tribe of Akwesasne turned to illegal gambling to change their fortunes. The underground enterprise grew rapidly, and this Mohawk reservation bordering Canada was soon rife with criminal activity. Tribe members divided into pro- and anti-gambling communities. As time passed, the situation turned violent, with pro-gambling forces known as the “Warrior Society” threatening those who opposed the casinos.
After the United States government raided the illegal casinos in 1989, New York State Police ceased patrolling the reservation, believing the situation had improved. But the casinos reappeared and tensions again flared. Despite pleas from the anti-gambling community and a request from the federal government, the state police refused to intervene, saying the problem involved tribe governance. Only after anti-gambling residents had fled their homes and two young men were killed in a gunfight did officers reenter to end the violence.
In an unsigned opinion, the court rejected the notion that the state police stopped patrolling the reservation for reasons of racial animus. The court said the decision to not intervene was a policy “aimed at an area, not a racial class.” While the court acknowledged that “geography and race are inevitably intertwined on a Native American reservation,” it said there was not enough evidence to prove discriminatory intent by the police. Absent intentional racism, even a policy that had a discriminatory impact on the tribe was not a constitutional violation.
