Medina v. New York State Division of Parole

Background

The court considered two filings: the City of New York’s motion for reconsideration of an earlier order, and Anthony Medina’s renewed request for appointment of pro bono counsel. Medina was proceeding without a lawyer. In the earlier order, the court had dismissed all of Medina’s claims except claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act against the City and New York State, and a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment against two parole officers concerning transportation accommodations.

The City asked the court to reconsider the portion of the earlier order that allowed Medina’s ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims against the City to proceed. It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, P.L.L.C., which held that emotional-distress damages are not recoverable under certain federal laws enacted under Congress’s spending power, including the Rehabilitation Act. The court also addressed the City’s request for clarification about injunctive relief.

Reconsideration Ruling

The court held that Cummings required dismissal of Medina’s Rehabilitation Act claims for emotional-distress damages against both the City and New York State. Although New York State had not moved for reconsideration, the court reviewed the earlier ruling as to the State because the same legal rule applied.

The court also held that the Second Circuit’s decision in Doherty v. Bice made emotional-distress damages unavailable under Title II of the ADA. It therefore dismissed Medina’s ADA claims for emotional-distress damages against the City and New York State.

The court did not dismiss Medina’s ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims to the extent they seek compensatory damages other than emotional-distress damages. The court stated that the alleged pain and suffering could involve physical pain or another type of injury that does not involve emotional damages. The court also clarified that Medina’s requests for injunctive relief under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act against the City had been dismissed as moot because he was no longer in the custody of the relevant city or state corrections agencies.

Accordingly, the City’s motion for reconsideration was GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

Request for Pro Bono Counsel

The court treated Medina’s filing as a renewed application for appointment of counsel rather than as a motion for reconsideration. The court noted that Medina had been granted permission to proceed without paying filing fees, that his claims had survived two unopposed motions to dismiss and the reconsideration motion, and that his claims therefore appeared likely to have substance.

The court also considered Medina’s reported limitations, including legal blindness requiring use of a closed-circuit television magnification device, a broken right wrist or hand, chronic nerve damage in both arms, hands, and fingers, visual disability, and bilateral neuropathy. It concluded that volunteer representation was more likely to produce a quicker and fairer determination. The court therefore GRANTED Medina’s request for appointment of pro bono counsel and directed the Clerk of Court to seek volunteer counsel. The court explained that representation depends on a volunteer lawyer accepting the matter and that Medina might still have to proceed without a lawyer if no volunteer is found.

Disposition

The City’s motion for reconsideration was granted in part and denied in part. Medina’s request for appointment of pro bono counsel was granted.