Source: https://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=199&amp;search=
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 00:37:10+00:00

Document:
Note: we don't know when the consolidation occurred, but according to the website of the Legal Aid Society of New York, this case was consolidated for enforcement purposes with Ambrose v. Malcolm; Detainees of Queens House of Detention v. Malcolm; Detainees of Brooklyn House of Detention for Men v. Malcolm; Maldonado v. Ciuros; Forts v. Malcolm; and Rosenthal v. Malcolm. The summary below includes all of these in the consolidated form, but you can see "related cases" for more information.
On June 24, 1975, a group of pretrial detainees at Rikers Island Detention Center for Men filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs sued New York City officials claiming that conditions under which they were held were unconstitutional. Their cause of action was 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and they were represented by the Legal Aid Society of New York. Their specific claims addressed a number of issues including attorney visits, library access, methods of restraint, temperature control, overcrowding, bathing facilities, disciplinary procedures, food service, and fire safety. A class was certified on September 26, 1975.
The court (Judge Morris Lasker) entered several orders during the next two years enjoining the defendants from continuing certain unconstitutional practices related to visitation, correspondence, and double-celling. In 1978, the parties requested that the court withhold determination of the issues until settlement negotiations were held. Judge Lasker approved a Partial Final Judgment by Consent in 1979 that addressed food service, cleanliness, and access to legal materials. The parties also entered into a Stipulation which allowed the court to enter judgment if Rikers Island did not come under the control of state authorities by December 1, 1979. This did not occur and the district court (Judge Lasker) ordered that the population of the facility be reduced to 1200 on August 27, 1980.
The district court joined the state as a third-party defendant on March 17, 1986, and ordered it to help alleviate the overcrowding by accepting inmates who were ready for state prison within 48 hours. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Judges Mansfield, Pierce, and Pratt) affirmed on September 25, 1986. In 1990, the defendants were held in contempt for housing inmates in non-housing areas of the faculty. Over the next several years, several motions were filed enforcing various provisions of the consent decrees.
On September 23, 1996, the court (Judge Harold Baer Jr.) vacated the consent decree following the passage of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, but the Second Circuit (Judges Calabresi, Oakes, and Haight) partially reversed on August 26, 1997. On June 6, 2000, the court (Judge Baer) partially granted and partially denied another motion to terminate the decree. The portions of the decree regulating restrictive housing, inmate correspondence, and law libraries were terminated but those regulating restraint policy and attorney visitations were not.
On December 21, 2000, the court (Judge Baer) terminated the portions of the consent decree regulating contact visitation, overcrowding, and medical services. Additionally, on January 9, 2001, the court (Judge Baer) terminated provisions of the consent decree dealing with plumbing, vermin control, food service, person hygiene, and laundry, but found ongoing violations in the areas of ventilation, temperature control, sanitation in non-medical areas, and lighting. On October 2, 2001, the Second Circuit (Judges Cardamore, Katzmann, and Leval) affirmed the District Court's decision to terminate various portions of the decree. The court (Judge Baer) terminated the portion of the consent decree dealing with attorney visitation on August 10, 2006.
On August 28, 2008, the court (Judge Baer) terminated the portions of the decree dealing with mattresses and food storage containers. The court also terminated portions of the Environmental Order on October 7, 2008. On January 28, 2009, the court (Judge Baer) ordered an assessment of all existing ventilation equipment in the areas covered by the decree and specified that the defendants would repair units and replace parts as necessary. Litigation has continued as various portions of the consent decree are vacated and appeals are made.
On March 5, 2015, the court (Judge Loretta A. Preska) denied the motion to enforce judgment as premature subject to reinstatement in light of the parties' good faith on-going settlement talks.
After this order, the docket shows a number of sealed documents. On May 23, 2018, the court ordered that the DOC no longer needed to provide monthly reports on its ventilation projects to the court. Based on the documents that are publicly available, it appears that the consent decree remains in effect and the case is open as the court continues to monitor various provisions of the consent decree and receive progress reports as of October 21, 2018.
Plaintiff Description Pre-trial detainees at Rikers Island Detention Center for Men.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1983