M.C. v. Jefferson County, New York

CourtDistrict Court, N.D. New York
DecidedAugust 29, 2024
Docket6:22-cv-00190
StatusUnknown

This text of M.C. v. Jefferson County, New York (M.C. v. Jefferson County, New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
M.C. v. Jefferson County, New York, (N.D.N.Y. 2024).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

M.C. and T.G., on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated individuals,

Plaintiffs,

-v- 6:22-CV-190

JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK, PETER R. BARNETT1, as Sheriff of Jefferson County, New York, BRIAN R. MCDERMOTT, as the Undersheriff of Jefferson County, and MARK WILSON, as the Facility Administrator of Jefferson County Correctional Facility,

Defendants.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

DAVID N. HURD United States District Judge

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ CONSENT MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT DECREE

On March 1, 2022, plaintiffs M.C. and T.G., recovering opioid users, filed this putative class action against defendants Jefferson County, New York, the County Sheriff, Undersheriff Brian R. McDermott, and Correctional

1 Peter R. Barnett has succeeded Colleen M. O’Neill as Sheriff of Jefferson County. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to amend the caption accordingly. See FED. R. CIV. P. 25(d). Facility Administrator Mark Wilson (“defendants”). Briefly stated, plaintiffs’ complaint alleged that defendants maintained an unlawful policy of banning

certain opioid use disorder medications for individuals in their custody. After that policy was preliminarily enjoined, Dkt. No. 30, the Court certified the following Class and related Subclasses (for pre- and post-conviction custody): all non-pregnant individuals who are or will be detained at the Jefferson County Correctional Facility and had or will have prescriptions for agonist medication for opioid use disorder at the time of entry into defendants’ custody.

Dkt. No. 53. At that time, named plaintiffs M.C. and T.G. were appointed as Class Representatives and the New York Civil Liberties Union Foundation was appointed as class counsel.2 Id. After a period of extensive discovery, the parties notified the Court that they had reached a settlement. Dkt. No. 128. On March 26, 2024, plaintiffs moved under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for preliminary approval of the class settlement and proposed consent decree and for an Order directing notice to the Class and the two Subclasses Dkt. No. 130. That motion, which was unopposed, was granted on April 24, 2024. Dkt. No. 132. Thereafter, the parties complied with the

notice plan. See Dkt. No. 133-1. No objections have been received. Id.

2 Plaintiff M.C. died before the parties finalized the terms of the proposed consent decree. On August 15, 2024, plaintiffs moved for final approval of the consent decree. Dkt. No. 133. That motion was unopposed. See id. The Court

scheduled a fairness hearing that occurred on this date in open court in Utica, New York. See id. No objections were heard. Upon consideration of the briefing in light of the governing law, with due consideration to the evidence in the record, and after hearing no objections on

the record on this date in open court, it is ORDERED that 1. Plaintiffs’ motion for final approval (Dkt. No. 133) is GRANTED; 2. The Proposed Consent Decree (Dkt. No. 131-1) is FINALLY

APPROVED because it: (a) is fair, adequate, and reasonable in light of the considerations described in Rule 23(e)(2); (b) satisfies the requirements for approval of a consent judgment set

forth in Kozlowski v. Coughlin, 871 F.2d 241 (2d Cir. 1989); and (c) complies with the requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, affording prospective relief that is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of federal rights, and is the least

intrusive means necessary to correct the violations of those rights, 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A); and 3. The payment of attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $352,310.10, as provided for in the Proposed Consent Decree and as set forth in additional detail at Dkt. No. 1384, is APPROVED as reasonable and authorized by law. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the pending motion, enter

a judgment accordingly, and close the file. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 29, 2024 «nf An Utica, New York. PUG

_4-

EXHIBIT A UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK M.C. et al., on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, Case No. 6:22-cv-190 (DNH/ML) v. JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK, et al., Defendants.

CONSENT DECREE

WHEREAS, on March 1, 2022, Plaintiffs M.C. and T.G. filed a class-action complaint alleging that Defendants Jefferson County, New York; Colleen M. O’Neill,1 as the Sheriff of Jefferson County, New York; Brian R. McDermott, as the Undersheriff of Jefferson County; and Mark Wilson, as the Facility Administrator of Jefferson County Correctional Facility (collectively, “Defendants,” and, together with Plaintiffs, the “Parties”) maintained a practice of routinely denying prescribed, life-sustaining medical treatment to Plaintiffs and other individuals with opioid use disorder (“OUD”) at the Jefferson County Correctional Facility (the “Jail”) in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution the New York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York State Human Rights Law; WHEREAS, on May 16, 2022, the Court certified a class (the “Class”) defined as “all non-pregnant individuals who are or will be detained at the Jefferson County Correctional Facility and had or will have prescriptions for agonist medication for opioid use disorder at the time of entry into defendants’ custody,” as well as two subclasses, one each for class members subject to pretrial and postconviction custody, respectively; appointed Plaintiffs as class representatives; and appointed the New York Civil Liberties Union Foundation as class counsel (“Class Counsel”); WHEREAS, on May 16, 2022, the Court preliminarily enjoined Defendants to provide Plaintiffs and the certified class with agonist medication for OUD (“MOUD”) during their detention in Defendants’ custody in accordance with the requirements set forth in New York Correction Law section 626; and 1 Peter R. Barnett is now the Sheriff of Jefferson County and, pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, is automatically substituted for Colleen M. O’Neill in this litigation. WHEREAS, the Parties will jointly petition the Court for approval of this agreement (the “Agreement”); NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties stipulate and agree, and IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED as follows. A. Jurisdiction and Venue. 1. The Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over the Action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 1343, and 1367; 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and Title of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq. Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York under 28 U.S.C. § 1391. B. Availability of MOUD Treatment. 1.

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

Related

Kozlowski v. Coughlin
871 F.2d 241 (Second Circuit, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
M.C. v. Jefferson County, New York, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mc-v-jefferson-county-new-york-nynd-2024.