Case: Butler v. Suffolk County
2:11-cv-02602 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Filed Date: May 27, 2011
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
On May 27, 2011, twenty persons then confined in the Suffolk County Correctional Facility (SCCF), which consists of the Riverhead Correctional Facility (a medium/maximum security jail) and the Yaphank Correctional Facility (a minimum security jail), filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. The lawsuit was filed pro se as a class action, on behalf of those individuals and all others similarly situated. The plaintiffs sought injunctive relief and compensatory and punitive damages, alleging that the conditions of their confinement violated their constitutional rights. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged unsanitary and hazardous living conditions, including, among other things, chronic exposure to human waste and the presence of fungi, mold and other hazardous matters in the shower and housing areas, which caused various ailments to the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs all sought to proceed in forma pauperis. The plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on June 17, 2011, adding additional eight plaintiffs detained in the SCCF. The Court (Judge Joanna Seybert), on June 23, 2011, granted the forma pauperis status, but denied the request to proceed as a class action due to the fact that all of the class representatives were proceeding without counsel.
The plaintiffs filed a motion to join four additional plaintiffs on June 30, 2011. On July 27, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a Supplemental Amended Complaint seeking to add seven additional plaintiffs as Supplemental Plaintiffs. The motion for joinder was granted by the order of the Court (Judge Joanna Seybert) on October 7, 2011, but the Court denied the motion to join Supplemental Plaintiffs. The Court also dismissed four plaintiffs with the same order.
On November 22, 2011, the Court (Judge Joanna Seybert) determined that the appointment of pro bono counsel was appropriate and directed the Court's Pro Se Office to find willing counsel. Afterwards, the Court received a large number of substantially similar complaints from inmates at SCCF, seeking damages, amounting to fifty-nine separate complaints alleging similar violations due to unsanitary conditions. On January 23, 2012, the Court (Judge Joanna Seybert) appointed Shearman & Sterling LLP as pro bono counsel, and ordered consolidation of all existing fifty-nine actions as well as any future complaints of the living conditions at SCCF with Shearman & Sterling's appointment extended to all of the plaintiffs in the newly consolidated action. By April 5, 2012, there were 163 plaintiffs.
On April 5, 2012, the pro bono counsel filed the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, dropping all plaintiffs but for the named six plaintiffs, but seeking to represent the interests of all 163 plaintiffs, as well as other past, present or future persons imprisoned at SCCF, by proceeding as a class action, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The New York Civil Liberties Union joined in the representation. The complaint was filed against Suffolk County, the Sheriff of Suffolk County and his deputies in their personal and official capacities. The plaintiffs alleged violations of constitutional rights, negligence and ministerial negligence under New York common law. The allegations included, among other things, overcrowding, and unsanitary and hazardous conditions at the jail-- including flawed plumbing that leads to chronic exposure to human waste and contaminated food and drinking water, which caused the prisoners various health issues. The plaintiffs sought injunctive and declaratory relief, compensatory and punitive damages.
On May 16, 2012, the County moved to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint. On May 17, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. On March 19, 2013, the Court (Judge Joanna Seybert) addressed both motions. The Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss, dismissing without prejudice claims against the Sheriff and his deputies of personal liability for cruel and inhuman treatment. The Court explained that for such liability to exist, the plaintiffs must demonstrate the defendants' actual knowledge of substantial risk of serious harm, while the complaint pleaded only constructive knowledge. The claim under the theory of supervisory liability against the Sheriff and his deputies was also dismissed, because the complaint was void of any allegations that the defendants made the decisions that allegedly constituted the violations. All other claims survived. The Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, creating two classes, injunctive and damages, constituted of all persons who are at present time or will at any time in the future be detained at SCCF, with separate subclasses for those persons detained at Riverhead and Yaphank, with the named plaintiffs ordered to be the class representatives. The counsel of the named plaintiffs was ordered to be appointed class counsel.
Between 2013 and 2019, the parties conducted discovery and filed respective motions for summary judgment in fall 2018. Subsequently, the court terminated these pending summary judgment motions in September 2019. In doing so, the court directed the plaintiffs to file a motion proposing those class members who had fully exhausted administrative remedies per the PLRA's requirements, or who were not subject to the exhaustion requirement, as substitute class representatives. A motion to add additional class representatives was filed in December 2019. While the motion was pending, the case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Steven Tiscione on January 21, 2020.
On August 9, 2023, the court (Judge Joanna Seybert) ruled on plaintiffs' motion to add additional class representatives, and on all parties' summary judgment motions filed in September 2019. The court granted plaintiffs' motion to add class representatives to both the injunctive class and the damages class. The court then denied all motions for summary judgment, finding that there were still genuine disputes of material fact.
The court instructed the parties to appear for a status conference on November 9, 2023 to determine how to proceed with the case. Parties agreed to hold a settlement conference before the court on February 22, 2024. Just before the settlement conference, defendants obtained new counsel, and following the conference, Magistrate Judge Steven Tiscione recused himself from the case due to conflict with the new counsel. The court assigned Magistrate Judge Anne Y. Shields to oversee pretrial matters.
The new Magistrate Judge set the trial for November 2024, and mandated that parties continue to attend settlement conferences throughout the pretrial and supplemental discovery period. Parties were unable to reach a settlement agreement. Additionally, amidst several discovery disputes, on September 27, 2024, defendants again filed a motion to decertify the class, or in the alternative to amend the class definition. Defendants argued that because of the length of litigation and discovery, the people included in the present class definitions experienced different conditions of confinement depending on when and where they were confined. Therefore, defendants moved to decertify the classes in their entirety, or in the alternative to confine the class definition to those prisoners confined between April 5, 2009 and April 5, 2013. The court held a pretrial conference in October 2024, after which the court rescheduled the jury trial for February 2025. In December 2024, defendants communicated that they did not want to participate in any further settlement discussions.
On January 22, 2025, the defendants’ motion to decertify the class was denied. Settlement discussions resumed on February 10, with another settlement conference and pretrial conference. On May 19, 2025, a motion for settlement and preliminary approval of settlement was filed by the plaintiffs. On May 21, the parties had reached a settlement agreement, with the defendants agreeing to improve the living conditions of its jails and pay a total of $18 million. All individuals who were detained at one of the facilities are entitled to compensation varying based on length of detainment and any claim of special injury. Among the improvements to living conditions are physical repairs to the jails, and the appointment of a health professional to address health concerns and provide environmental health training to personnel and detainees, and oversee distribution of cleaning supplies.
On October 9, the plaintiff filed a motion for class settlement. Final approval is pending.
Summary Authors
Zhandos Kuderin (3/29/2014)
Raul Noguera-McElroy (4/19/2019)
Jane Fisher (11/13/2020)
Sarah Portwood (1/12/2025)
Rayhan Younas (10/12/2025)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4519959/parties/butler-v-suffolk-county/
Adams, George B. (New York)
Belsher, Amy (New York)
Berkowitz, Alexis Scott (New York)
Chen, Hanchu (New York)
Chorny, Samantha (New York)
Berkowitz, Alexis Scott (New York)
Desgranges, Philip Louis (New York)
Dunn, Christopher Thomas (New York)
Gemmell, Antony Philip (New York)
Godwin, Melissa Jane (New York)
Klebanoff, Benjamin (New York)
LaGuardia, Daniel Hector Rees (New York)
Nalbantov, Petar Dimitrov (New York)
Nathanson, John Alexander (New York)
Pendergrass, Taylor Scott (New York)
Salama, Veronica R. (New York)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4519959/butler-v-suffolk-county/
Last updated April 1, 2026, 4:50 a.m.
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Post-WalMart decisions on class certification
Key Dates
Filing Date: May 27, 2011
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Any and Future Detainees and Prisoners
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: Unknown
Filed Pro Se: Yes
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Granted
Defendants
County
Suffolk County
Defendant Type(s):
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Constitutional Clause(s):
Other Dockets:
Eastern District of New York 2:11-cv-02602
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Granted:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Amount Defendant Pays: 18,000,000 USD
Issues
General/Misc.:
Sanitation / living conditions
Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:
Medical/Mental Health Care:
Case Summary of Butler v. Suffolk County, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, http://www.dev.clearinghouse.net/case/13166/ (last updated 10/12/2025).