Clarkson v. Coughlin

Background

Reynaldo Perez, who represented himself, sought relief based on an alleged violation of the Clarkson consent decree concerning accommodations for deaf and hard-of-hearing prisoners in the custody of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision. Perez had first filed a separate action against officials at Woodbourne Correctional Facility. Following the approach used by the late Judge Robert Sweet in earlier proceedings, the court treated that complaint as a motion for civil contempt in the Clarkson case and directed that the separate action be closed.

Perez was medically classified as HL20, meaning hard of hearing. He had been approved for accommodations including a telephone amplifier, closed-caption television, sound amplification, hearing aids, and headphones. Under the version of Department Directive 2612 applicable to his claims, teletypewriter telephone services were provided to prisoners classified as HL10, meaning deaf, rather than HL20. The opinion also states that the recreation room Perez sought was designated for HL10 prisoners.

Claims and legal standards

Perez claimed that Woodbourne officials improperly denied him teletypewriter telephone access and access to the HL10 recreation room. He also stated that he had received teletypewriter access at Great Meadow Correctional Facility, where he had previously been housed.

Civil contempt is a court procedure used to enforce compliance with a court order. The court explained that Perez had to provide clear and convincing evidence that the decree was violated. It also considered whether the decree was clear and unambiguous and whether officials had made a reasonable effort to comply.

Court’s analysis

The court held that Perez’s requests for equitable relief—meaning orders requiring officials to provide access or take other action—were moot because he had been transferred from Woodbourne to Fishkill Correctional Facility. Under the rule the court applied, an inmate’s transfer generally makes requests for declaratory or injunctive relief against officials at the former facility moot.

The court separately considered whether the officials had violated the consent decree while Perez was at Woodbourne. It found that Perez had not shown by clear and convincing evidence that they had done so. The court concluded that, under the applicable directive, Perez was not entitled to teletypewriter services or the HL10 recreation room because he was classified as HL20. It also noted that he received other accommodations, including access to closed-caption television and headphones with audio control.

The court stated that any additional teletypewriter access Perez may have received at Great Meadow was more generous than the consent decree required. That earlier accommodation did not change the decree or create an entitlement to the extra service at Woodbourne.

Disposition

Judge Colleen McMahon denied Perez’s contempt motion. The Clerk was directed to remove the motion from the list of pending motions.