×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Violence as a Condition of Confinement Violates Eighth Amendment
Prisoner filed class action suit based on the level of inmate-inmate and
staff-inmate violence at the Correctional Institute For Men (CIFM) in New
York City. The district court found that violence level at CIFM exceeded
levels at other, comparable, institutes; that violent prisoners were not
kept apart from general population prisoners even after repeated acts of
violence; and, that violent attacks occurred not only in the general
population areas, but also in the protective custody areas. The district
court ordered injunctive relief for the plaintiffs, and after giving prison
officials the opportunity to submit a remedial plan, reviewed the plan
thoroughly and made such modifications as were deemed necessary to ensure
constitutional compliance. See the PLN index for other rulings in this case.
Prison officials appealed. The court of appeals upheld the lower court's
decision that when violence becomes so prevalent as to be an actual
condition of confinement, it is a violation of the Eighth Amendment. See
Fisher v. Koehler, 902 F 2d 2 (2nd Cir. 1990).
staff-inmate violence at the Correctional Institute For Men (CIFM) in New
York City. The district court found that violence level at CIFM exceeded
levels at other, comparable, institutes; that violent prisoners were not
kept apart from general population prisoners even after repeated acts of
violence; and, that violent attacks occurred not only in the general
population areas, but also in the protective custody areas. The district
court ordered injunctive relief for the plaintiffs, and after giving prison
officials the opportunity to submit a remedial plan, reviewed the plan
thoroughly and made such modifications as were deemed necessary to ensure
constitutional compliance. See the PLN index for other rulings in this case.
Prison officials appealed. The court of appeals upheld the lower court's
decision that when violence becomes so prevalent as to be an actual
condition of confinement, it is a violation of the Eighth Amendment. See
Fisher v. Koehler, 902 F 2d 2 (2nd Cir. 1990).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Fisher v. Koehler
| Year | 1990 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 902 F 2d 2 (2nd Cir. 1990) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
| Conclusion | Bench Verdict |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 0 |
| Injunction Status | Granted |
Fisher v. Koehler, 902 F.2d 2 (2nd Cir. 04/16/1990)
[1] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
[2] Docket No. 89-7860
[3] 1990; 902 F.2d 2
[4] decided: April 16, 1990.
[5] CHARLES FISHER, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES,
v.
RICHARD KOEHLER, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS
[6] Appeal from July 14, 1989, judgment of the United States District of New York, Morris E. Lasker, J., finding that inmate-inmate and staff-inmate violence at the Correctional Institute for Men (CIFM) in New York City violated the eighth Amendment, and fashioning a remedy. Held: district court correctly determined that conditions at CIFM violated EIghth Amendment, and fully complied with guidelines set out in Dean v. Coughlin, 804 F.2d 207 (2d Cir. 1986). Judgment affirmed.
[7] FRED KOLIKOFF, New York, New York, Assistant Corporation Counsel of the City of New York (Victor A. Kovner, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, Leonard J. Koerner, Fay Leoussis, William J. Thom, Assistant Corporation Counsel, of Counsel), for Defendants-Appellants.
[8] JOHN BOSTON, New York, New York, The Legal Aid Society, Prisoners' Rights Project (Philip L. Weinstein, Claudette R. Spencer, Dale A. Wilker, of Counsel), for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
[9] Kaufman, Feinberg and Walker, Circuit Judges.
[10] Author: Per Curiam
[11] Defendants Richard Koehler, et al. appeal from a July 14, 1989 judgment against them in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Morris E. Lasker, J., in an action brought by plaintiffs-appellees Charles Fisher, et al., a class of inmates at the Correctional Institute for Men (CIFM) in New York City. After a long trial on the separate issue of violence at CIFM and its causes, the district court found in an extensive opinion, reported at 692 F. Supp. 1519, that "violence at CIFM, both inmate-inmate and staff-inmate, has reached proportions that violate the Eighth Amendment." Id. at 1521. In a subsequent opinion, reported at 718 F. Supp. 1111, the district court fashioned an injunctive remedy whose terms were incorporated into the judgment.
[12] Appellants raise two arguments on appeal. First, they assert that the conditions at CIFM do not violate the Eighth Amendment. Second, they claim that, in fashioning its remedy, the district court failed to follow the guidelines we set out in Dean v. Coughlin, 804 F.2d 207 (2d Cir. 1986).
[13] We reject both arguments, which, in the face of Judge Lasker's careful and thorough opinions, border on the frivolous. As to the first, we affirm the district court's ruling that conditions at CIFM violate the Eighth Amendment substantially for the reasons set forth in the district court's opinion on liability. With regard to the second, we hold that the district court's remedy completely satisfies Dean. The district court took great pains to fashion an appropriate judgment; it consulted fully and at length with the parties, reviewed appellants' remedial plan thoroughly and accepted most of it with such modifications as were necessary to ensure constitutional compliance.
[14] The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
[1] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
[2] Docket No. 89-7860
[3] 1990; 902 F.2d 2
[4] decided: April 16, 1990.
[5] CHARLES FISHER, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES,
v.
RICHARD KOEHLER, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS
[6] Appeal from July 14, 1989, judgment of the United States District of New York, Morris E. Lasker, J., finding that inmate-inmate and staff-inmate violence at the Correctional Institute for Men (CIFM) in New York City violated the eighth Amendment, and fashioning a remedy. Held: district court correctly determined that conditions at CIFM violated EIghth Amendment, and fully complied with guidelines set out in Dean v. Coughlin, 804 F.2d 207 (2d Cir. 1986). Judgment affirmed.
[7] FRED KOLIKOFF, New York, New York, Assistant Corporation Counsel of the City of New York (Victor A. Kovner, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, Leonard J. Koerner, Fay Leoussis, William J. Thom, Assistant Corporation Counsel, of Counsel), for Defendants-Appellants.
[8] JOHN BOSTON, New York, New York, The Legal Aid Society, Prisoners' Rights Project (Philip L. Weinstein, Claudette R. Spencer, Dale A. Wilker, of Counsel), for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
[9] Kaufman, Feinberg and Walker, Circuit Judges.
[10] Author: Per Curiam
[11] Defendants Richard Koehler, et al. appeal from a July 14, 1989 judgment against them in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Morris E. Lasker, J., in an action brought by plaintiffs-appellees Charles Fisher, et al., a class of inmates at the Correctional Institute for Men (CIFM) in New York City. After a long trial on the separate issue of violence at CIFM and its causes, the district court found in an extensive opinion, reported at 692 F. Supp. 1519, that "violence at CIFM, both inmate-inmate and staff-inmate, has reached proportions that violate the Eighth Amendment." Id. at 1521. In a subsequent opinion, reported at 718 F. Supp. 1111, the district court fashioned an injunctive remedy whose terms were incorporated into the judgment.
[12] Appellants raise two arguments on appeal. First, they assert that the conditions at CIFM do not violate the Eighth Amendment. Second, they claim that, in fashioning its remedy, the district court failed to follow the guidelines we set out in Dean v. Coughlin, 804 F.2d 207 (2d Cir. 1986).
[13] We reject both arguments, which, in the face of Judge Lasker's careful and thorough opinions, border on the frivolous. As to the first, we affirm the district court's ruling that conditions at CIFM violate the Eighth Amendment substantially for the reasons set forth in the district court's opinion on liability. With regard to the second, we hold that the district court's remedy completely satisfies Dean. The district court took great pains to fashion an appropriate judgment; it consulted fully and at length with the parties, reviewed appellants' remedial plan thoroughly and accepted most of it with such modifications as were necessary to ensure constitutional compliance.
[14] The judgment of the district court is affirmed.