Al-Jundi v. Mancusi

113 F. Supp. 2d 441, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16006, 2000 WL 1376652
District Court, W.D. New York·Decided August 28, 2000·No. 1:75-cv-00132·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

DECISION and ORDER

FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS PURSUANT TO RULE 23(e) FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

TELESCA, District Judge.

*443 TABLE OF CONTENTS

THE DECISION

I INTRODUCTION.443

II PROCEDURE FOR EVALUATING CLAIMS .444

A. Verification of Class Membership.444

B. The Claim Process.444

C. The Evaluation Process.445

III DEATH CLAIMS.446

IV TESTIMONY.447

V CONCLUSION.449

APPENDIX

IINJURY CLAIMS AND AMOUNTS AWARDED.450

IIDEATH CLAIMS AND AMOUNTS AWARDED.561

IIIDISALLOWED OR WITHDRAWN CLAIMS.564

IVCORROBORATING TESTIMONY ... .564

INTRODUCTION

The plaintiffs in this class action were inmates in D-Yard at the Attica Correctional Facility (“Attica”) on September 13, 1971. They brought this action seeking damages for civil rights violations, claiming that they were injured by law enforcement officers during and after the retaking of Attica on September 13, 1971, which ended a four-day riot. The case was commenced on September 12, 1974 and has a long, complex procedural history, including several trials and appeals. On August 12, 1999, the case was re-assigned to this Court for expedited treatment pursuant to the decision of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals dated August 3, 1999. Following intensive negotiations, the parties presented a proposed Settlement Agreement dated January 4, 2000 which provided for the State of New York (without admitting liability) to pay $8,000,000.00 into a fund to be apportioned by the Court among the qualified plaintiff class members. The terms of the settlement require the Court to determine the individual awards in proportion to the seriousness of the injuries sustained by all class members making claims. The Settlement Agreement also provides that a separate fund be established in the amount of $4,000,000.00 by the State for disbursement to plaintiffs’ class attorneys for legal services rendered during the past 25 years in addition to those rendered in these proceedings. Allocation of those funds will be dealt with in a separate decision.

The intent of the settlement is to limit recovery to only class members who were defined in a 1979 Decision as those Attica inmates who were in D-Yard on September 13, 1971. The settlement is specific in this regard and, therefore, cannot cover injuries sustained by inmates who are not class members even though they may have been injured elsewhere at Attica on or after September 13, 1971. Nor, unfortunately, can the settlement benefit the famines of the deceased or injured hostages. A significant benefit of the settlement process was to afford the class members the opportunity to testify publicly and to bring this case to a conclusion without establishing fault or responsibility. Finality and resolution are thus achieved to the extent possible under the circumstances presented to this Court.

A fairness hearing was held on February 14, 2000 which gave class members the *444 opportunity to express their views with respect to the proposed settlement. This Court then issued a Decision and Order dated February 15, 2000 granting preliminary approval of the proposed settlement and directing that notice of the settlement terms be provided to class members by regular mail and by publication. Class members were required to file sworn claim forms by no later than July 7, 2000 in order to participate in the settlement. Class members were also informed that each would be given the opportunity to supplement his claim with in-court testimony if he so desired. Class members choosing not to testify would have their claims fully considered on the basis of the sworn claim form along with any documentary proof in support of the claim.

PROCEDURE FOR EVALUATING CLAIMS

The settlement requires the Court to make a proportionate, equitable distribution of the settlement fund among the qualified class members. A procedure was established for each class member to make a claim and for the Court to evaluate the claim and determine its value based upon the comparative seriousness of the injuries sustained.' All claims, including the death claims, shall be paid from the settlement fund which was initially established in the amount of $8,000,000 paid into the Registry of the Court subject to the Court’s control.

Verification of Class Membership

The Settlement Agreement provides that only class members are entitled to share in the proceeds of the settlement fund. The plaintiffs’ class is defined in a Decision and Order dated October 31, 1979, as “all persons who were on September 13, 1971 inmates of the Attica Correctional Facility, Wyoming County, N.Y., and who were present in D-yard of Attica on such date.” Following the announcement of the settlement on February 14, 2000, this Court received 581 claims from individuals claiming to be class members. It was critical to first verify the claimant’s membership in the plaintiffs’ class. The Court reviewed Attica prison records fist-ing the name of every inmate incarcerated at Attica on September 13, 1971 and separately identifying those inmates who were present in D-Yard on that date. The Court also examined the inmate’s individual prison files produced by the New York State Department of Corrections during the discovery phase of this litigation to search for any documentary evidence which could confirm whether or not he was at Attica and present in D-Yard on September 13, 1971. If no documents were found, then a separate notice was sent by the Court to that claimant or his representative providing him with an opportunity within one month to supplement his claim with any evidence to refute the presumption that the claimant was not present in D-Yard on September 13,1971.

Those persons whose claims were disallowed or withdrawn are fisted in Appendix III and are not entitled to share in the settlement proceeds.

The Claim Process

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Al-Jundi v. Mancusi, 113 F. Supp. 2d 441, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16006, 2000 WL 1376652 (W.D.N.Y. 2000).

113 F. Supp. 2d 441 (Al-Jundi v. Mancusi) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related