Cortez v. Cuomo

Background

Paul V. Cortez, an incarcerated plaintiff representing himself, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against New York State and correctional officials. The opinion states that his claims were based on the First Amendment’s protection of religious exercise and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, a federal law protecting religious exercise by people confined in institutions. Cortez sought injunctive relief—an order preventing future COVID-19-related suspensions of religious programs—but did not seek money damages.

Beginning in March 2020, the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision restricted gatherings and suspended congregate religious services and special events during the COVID-19 pandemic. People in custody could continue private religious practices, including prayer, religious reading, holiday observance, religious diets, correspondence, and telephone calls. Religious study groups were supposed to continue subject to distancing and capacity restrictions, but that direction was not carried out at Green Haven until May 2021. Religious services resumed at facilities at limited capacity in February 2021, but religious services and study groups were paused again during COVID-19 infection spikes in October 2021 and January-February 2022.

Cortez was incarcerated at Green Haven when he filed the lawsuit. He was transferred to Sing Sing on or about March 23, 2022, to participate in a religion-focused master’s degree program offered there. The record stated that there had been no COVID-19-related suspensions of religious programs since February 9, 2022.

Ruling

The defendants moved for summary judgment, which asks whether the evidence shows that no genuine dispute of important fact requires a trial and that the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint.

Claims Based on Green Haven Events

The court held that Cortez’s claims concerning religious-program interruptions at Green Haven were moot. A claim is moot when the dispute is no longer live or the plaintiff no longer has a legally recognized interest in the requested relief. Because Cortez had been transferred from Green Haven to Sing Sing, the court concluded that he generally could not obtain an injunction against officials at the facility where he no longer lived.

Cortez argued that his claims applied to every correctional facility and that he might return to Green Haven after completing his degree program. The court rejected those arguments. It found that he had not experienced harm at other facilities and that any future transfer to another facility was uncertain. The court also noted that a pro se litigant may represent only himself, not other incarcerated people.

Claims Based on Future Suspensions

The court held that Cortez’s claims concerning possible future suspensions were unripe. A claim is unripe when the alleged injury is too uncertain or premature for judicial review. Cortez did not allege or provide evidence that religious programs were currently suspended at Sing Sing or that he had experienced such a suspension there. The possibility of a future health emergency was not enough because the record did not establish what programs would be suspended, for how long, or under what conditions.

Because the future restrictions were unknown, the court said it could not determine whether they would violate the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act or the First Amendment. Those legal questions would require examining the specific burden on Cortez’s religious exercise and the government’s justification for the particular restrictions imposed.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, dismissed all claims against all defendants, terminated the case, and directed the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of the defendants. The opinion did not decide whether the past or hypothetical future suspensions violated the First Amendment or the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act; it resolved the case based on mootness and ripeness.