CIVIL RIGHTS

Partnering with The Legal Society to Pause NYC’s Transfer of City’s Homeless

In July 2021, a Jenner & Block team consisting of Partner Dawn Smalls; Associates Jacob Alderdice, Ali Alsarraf, and Andrew Elliott; and Paralegal Grace Liberman, partnering with The Legal Aid Society, won a TRO against the City of New York, securing a pause to Mayor Bill de Blasio’s order to move homeless New Yorkers who had been placed in single- or double-occupancy rooms in local hotels throughout the COVID-19 pandemic back into congregate shelter without adequate notice and an individualized assessment of their needs.

The class members had disabilities as defined by the ADA or risk factors that would put them at higher risk of severe consequences if they were to contract COVID-19. After Judge Gregory Woods of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York’s July 13th decision granting the first temporary restraining order, freezing the City’s efforts to move class members out of safe housing and requiring the City to make sure the class members’ needs were addressed before they were moved, the firm and The Legal Aid Society issued a joint statement, stating in part: “The City cannot phase out the hotel program without ensuring that it meets its obligations under Butler. We thank the court for recognizing that the City must meet this obligation as prescribed by law.”

And on December 16, The Legal Aid Society recognized the team with a 2021 Pro Bono Publico award for “providing significant and invaluable support in litigation around the use of hotels for people who are homeless during the pandemic.”

In August, US District Judge Valerie Caproni of the Southern District of New York granted a second TRO, pausing the moves until the City could come up with a better and more detailed plan, subject to the Court’s approval, for the remainder of the moves. She also ordered the City to lay out procedures for a look-back at people who had already been transferred to new locations, given the issues raised by the plaintiffs over the preceding weeks. “This is a win on behalf of the city’s homeless,” Dawn told the New York Law Journal.

This litigation followed an earlier lawsuit that Dawn, Jacob, Ali, Andrew, and Associate Cayman Mitchell and paralegal Nyema Taylor filed against the City of New York, the Department of Social Services, and the Department of Homeless Services, for failing to take appropriate action to temporarily provide safe shelter for single adults from COVID-19. Following that first filing, the City placed some members in hotel rooms, allowing them to safely socially distance and saving lives during the pandemic.  

Supporting Families of EQUIP for Equality’s Special Education Clinic

For the last three years, Jenner & Block lawyers have supported the work of Equip for Equality’s Special Education Clinic.  The clinic administers the federally mandated Protection & Advocacy System for Illinois for families of children with disabilities. The families, like many others, faced challenges navigating remote learning and return-to-school policies amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

Jenner & Block continued our long-term commitment during the pandemic and assisted multiples families in navigating their academic needs while staying safe and healthy.  

Partner Landon Raiford and former associate Kara Crutcher represented the parent of a 13-year-old with an auditory processing disorder and a learning disability who wanted CPS to place her daughter at a specialized school to meet her child’s needs. Landon and Kara represented at mediation and obtained the desired placement. The parent was very appreciative of their assistance and support for their child’s educational success.

Landon and former associate Jonathan Slack represented the parent of a 15-year-old-student with complex medical issues, including a heart condition, who had transferred from an out of state school district and was denied enrollment because the neighborhood school could not meet his nursing needs. Landon and Jonathan obtained additional credit recovery programs so that the student could graduate on time. The student took a summer program and was able to make up the credits that he was missing. The student and parent were grateful for the ability to make up the courses and be on track for graduation.

Securing Favorable Settlement in Civil Rights Case

On the eve of trial in a Section 1983 civil rights case, a Jenner & Block team obtained a favorable settlement for our client who had reported several prison guards for misconduct.

Our client alleged that in retaliation for his report, the guards took him to an isolated area of the prison that was closed for construction and beat him until he lost consciousness. The guards denied all wrong doing, claiming that the client had instead slipped and fell to the ground during escort.

Our client, who had limited education and financial means, was originally proceeding without counsel and having difficulty making his case in the face of the guards' denial of any wrongdoing. The Jenner team was able to secure evidence from the prison confirming that our client was taken to an outside hospital by ambulance for treatment shortly after the attack, that the area under construction had no security cameras or other safeguards to prevent abuse of prisoners by staff, and that the guards involved had coordinated their incident reports before officially filing them.  Based on this evidence, the action was favorably settled.

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California recognized Partner Kirsten Hicks Spira and Special Counsel Wesley M. Griffith as honorees for their work on this case.  Associates Elizabeth Avunjian and Effiong K. Dampha were also centrally involved in the case.  

Associates Vivian Bickford, Kristen Green, and Julia Hirata and Paralegal Christal Oropeza also supported this matter. 

Seventh Circuit Adopts Many Arguments in Amicus Brief, Reversing Lower Court’s Dismissal of Pro Se Litigant’s Case

In Cordell Sanders v. Michael Melvin, et al., the district court dismissed a plaintiff’s entire case as a sanction based on imprecise allegations the plaintiff — who is mentally ill and had been housed in solitary confinement for years—had included in their years-old, pro se complaint, and did so despite a pending summary judgment motion that showed a factual dispute regarding those allegations.  

Led by Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, amici are five legal professors who are experts on civil rights litigation, civil procedure, federal procedure, and the application of pleading standards to pro se litigants. They urged the Seventh Circuit to reverse the lower court’s decision and remand for further proceedings. They argued that affirming such a dismissal would be contrary to the established principles of leniency afforded pro se and inmate litigants, would violate the well-known rule that sanctions be narrowly tailored to misconduct, and would contravene the policy favoring resolving cases on their merits, among other things. The legal system, they noted, is complex and challenging – “especially for those without legal training.” They argued that the Seventh Circuit has held “that courts have an affirmative obligation to ensure that a pro se litigant’s claims are not dismissed as a result of procedural unfairness.” In this case, they argued, the district court was “particularly harsh and unnecessarily punitive.” Regarding sanctions against the litigant, the brief noted that “less draconian” alternatives are available. And dismissal with prejudice, according to the brief, is the “most severe” sanction that should be meted out “only with extreme caution.” “Sanctions should be used as a scalpel to surgically address issues where appropriate, not as a sledgehammer to squash an entire case,” the brief reads.  

On February 1, 2022, the Seventh Circuit issued a decision reversing the district court’s decision, and in doing so, adopted many of the arguments made in the amicus brief. The Seventh Circuit recognized the importance of affording leniency to pro se and prisoner litigants and also held that the district court abused its discretion by failing to consider lesser sanctions than dismissal.

The team writing the brief pro bono includes Partner Gabriel Gillett and Associates Grace Signorelli-Cassady and Elena Olivieri, with valuable assistance from Paralegal Mary Frances Patston.