Allen v. New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision

Background

The plaintiffs moved to certify two classes concerning the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision’s policy for medications defined as Medication with Abuse Potential, or “MWAP.” The proposed liability class covered incarcerated people with chronic pain or neuropathies whose MWAP medications were denied or discontinued without an individualized assessment of medical need or effectiveness. The proposed injunctive class covered current and future incarcerated people with chronic pain or neuropathies who require individualized assessments for MWAP treatment.

The State Represented Defendants, the Non-State Represented Defendants, and Chief Medical Officer Dr. Carol Moores opposed class certification. The proposed class period began June 1, 2015, and was to continue until the challenged treatment practices stopped and substantial remediation occurred.

Liability Class and Standing

The court held that the proposed liability class lacked standing under Article III of the Constitution. Standing is the requirement that a plaintiff show an injury connected to the defendant being sued. The court found that none of the named or absent plaintiffs was alleged to have been injured by all of the State Represented Defendants and Non-State Represented Defendants.

The plaintiffs relied on the “juridical link doctrine,” which can allow claims against related defendants in some circumstances when plaintiffs allege a shared scheme or legal relationship. The court declined to adopt that approach because the Second Circuit had held that Article III permits plaintiffs to sue only defendants who injured them, even when other defendants allegedly engaged in similar conduct that injured other people. The court therefore denied the motion to certify the liability class.

Injunctive Class

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 requires a proposed class to satisfy requirements including sufficient size, common questions, typical claims, adequate representation, and objectively defined membership. The court found that the plaintiffs met those requirements for the proposed injunctive class.

On size, the plaintiffs presented evidence that more than 1,000 patients had lost effective MWAP medication during the proposed class period and that they had collected medical records for at least 180 potential class members. The court rejected Dr. Moores’s arguments that later policy changes made the request for injunctive relief moot.

On commonality, the court found common questions about whether defendants’ discontinuation or denial of MWAP medications without individualized assessments and effective alternative treatment amounted to deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment. The court also found that the named plaintiffs’ claims were typical because at least some still required appropriate reassessments and treatment. It found the plaintiffs and their attorneys adequate to represent the class, and it concluded that medical records could objectively identify class members.

The court also found that a single injunction could provide relief to every member of the proposed class. Although some people might have been receiving proper treatment after implementation of Policy 1.24A, the court relied on its finding of ongoing constitutional violations and a likelihood of future harm, including medically unjustified discontinuation of treatment after transfers between facilities.

Disposition

Judge Loretta A. Preska granted the motion to certify the injunctive class under Rule 23(b)(2) and denied the motion to certify the liability class under Rules 23(b)(1)–(3) and 23(c)(4). The court adopted the plaintiffs’ definition of the injunctive class, found their attorneys qualified to serve as class counsel, directed counsel to identify appropriate class representatives, and ordered the clerk to close the class-certification motion.