Fed. Defenders of N.Y., Inc. v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons

954 F.3d 118

FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF NEW YORK, INC., on Behalf of Itself and Its Clients Detained at the Metropolitan Detention Center-Brooklyn, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, Warden Herman Quay, in His Official Capacity, Defendants-Appellees.

Docket No. 19-1778

August Term, 2020

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Argued: February 11, 2020

Decided: March 20, 2020

Jenna M. Dabbs (Sean Hecker, Joshua Matz, Matthew J. Craig, Benjamin D. White, on the brief), Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Sean P. Greene (Varuni Nelson, Rachel G. Balaban, Seth D. Eichenholtz, on the brief), for Richard P. Donoghue, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, NY, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: Walker, Parker, and Carney, Circuit Judges.

John M. Walker, Jr., Barrington D. Parker, Susan L. Carney:

This appeal concerns the severe curtailment of defense attorneys' access to client inmates held at the Metropolitan Detention Center-Brooklyn ("MDC"), most of whom are pretrial detainees who have not been convicted of a crime.

In February 2019, the Federal Defenders of New York, Inc. (the "Federal Defenders" or "Defenders") sued the Federal Bureau of Prisons (the "BOP") and Warden Herman Quay ("Warden Quay") (together, "Defendants"), alleging that their cancellation of inmate-attorney visits at the MDC violates the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. § 706(2), and the right to counsel established by the Sixth Amendment. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brodie, J. ), dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. The District Court held that the Federal Defenders' APA claim did not satisfy the zone-of-interests test and it concluded that the Defenders did not have a cause of action under the Sixth Amendment because the constitutional right to counsel is personal to the accused.

For the reasons set forth below, we VACATE the District Court's judgment. The District Court erred in dismissing the Defenders' APA claim by failing to consider relevant BOP regulations in its zone-of-interests analysis. It also misunderstood the basis of their Sixth Amendment claim: whereas the Federal Defenders bring this claim under the federal courts' inherent equitable powers, the District Court treated the claim as purporting to arise directly under the Sixth Amendment. Because the equitable nature of the claim raises important questions of constitutional law not fully explored by the District Court, we remand the cause for further proceedings on the APA claim and, if necessary, for reconsideration of the Sixth Amendment claim.

BACKGROUND

The MDC is the principal federal pretrial detention facility in the Eastern District of New York. It houses more than 1,600 inmates in two buildings located in Brooklyn. The BOP, which administers the nation's federal jail and prison system, oversees and directs operations at the MDC, with Warden Quay superintending the facility during the period relevant to this appeal.

Regulations issued by the BOP govern inmate-attorney visits at the MDC.¹ Under these rules, the Warden is responsible for "set[ting] the time and place" for attorney visitation. 28 C.F.R. § 543.13(b). In doing so, he must "provide the opportunity for pretrial inmate-attorney visits on a seven-days-a-week basis," id. at § 551.117(a), and he must "make every effort to arrange for a visit when prior notification is not practical," id. at § 543.13(c). In addition, the Warden generally may not restrict the frequency of attorney visits or require these visits to take place outside of normal visitation hours, although he "may make exceptions according to local conditions or for an emergency situation demonstrated by the inmate or visiting attorney." Id. at § 543.13(b).

The "standard practice" at the MDC is to allow attorneys to visit detainees from 8 am to 8 pm, seven days per week.² Joint App'x ("JA") 11. The Federal Defenders—a not-for-profit organization that "is dedicated to offering public defense services to indigent persons in federal criminal cases brought in the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York"—rely on this schedule to visit their clients at the MDC. JA 10.

In January 2019, however, a series of events resulted in a severe curtailment of the Federal Defenders' access to MDC inmates. First, the BOP cancelled or substantially delayed attorney visitation at the MDC during seven days in January, citing staffing issues related to a partial shutdown of the federal government that resulted from a budgetary dispute. Shortly after the government shutdown ended on January 25 and attorney visiting resumed, the BOP again cancelled all inmate-attorney visits at the MDC, effective from January 28 through February 2, this time in response to a fire that started in the MDC's switch gear room on January 27 and caused power outages throughout the facility. Inmate-attorney visits resumed again, temporarily, on February 3, but were then abruptly halted after less than four hours, apparently because of a confrontation between BOP officials and individuals who had assembled in the MDC's lobby.

The Federal Defenders spent "significant time, focus, and resources" in responding to these disruptions in the MDC's schedule for attorney visits. JA 16. During the January government shutdown, for example, the Federal Defenders complained in a contemporaneous letter to BOP officials that the "[l]ast-minute scheduling changes and unexpected closings impose[d] significant burdens on the Defenders and other defense lawyers, particularly those who ha[d] to travel long distances to meet with clients at these facilities, need[ed] to arrange for interpreters or other experts to attend meetings with their clients, or ha[d] a time-sensitive matter to discuss." JA 47.³ Later, in the wake of the January 27 fire, the Federal Defenders dedicated resources to contacting their clients in the MDC and gathering information about their clients' welfare. After hearing reports that the power outages had deprived many detainees of heating, electricity, hot water, phones, medical care, and other basic services, the Defenders repeatedly requested information from BOP officials on the conditions at the MDC and sought to know the reasons that the facility cancelled visitation. When the BOP "[s]tonewall[ed]" their requests, the Federal Defenders turned to the courts, seeking and securing an administrative order from the District Court (Irizarry, then C.J. ) that required the BOP to allow the Federal Defenders to inspect the MDC facilities and to speak directly with the inmates. JA 13-14.

In addition to draining the Federal Defenders' resources, the BOP's cancellations and delays of attorney visits impaired the Defenders' ability to represent their clients. During these periods of curtailment, the Federal Defenders could not review discovery files with clients. Nor could they counsel MDC inmates on pleading decisions, trial strategy, or the sentencing process. Disruptions to the visiting schedule also forced the Defenders' attorneys to cancel presentence and expert interviews and to postpone interviews for reentry programs that could have shortened their clients' periods of detention at the MDC.

On February 4, 2019, the Federal Defenders filed this action.⁴ In their Complaint, they allege that Defendants' suspension of attorney visitation at the MDC in early 2019 violated the APA (by contravening the BOP's own regulations on inmate-attorney visits) and the Sixth Amendment (by interfering with the right to counsel). The Federal Defenders request injunctive and declaratory relief, primarily in the form of an order requiring Defendants to maintain daily attorney visitation at the MDC.

On the day that the Federal Defenders filed their complaint, the District Court (DeArcy Hall, J. ) granted their concurrent application for a temporary restraining order (the "TRO"). The TRO required Defendants to reinstate attorney visits "in accordance with the MDC's normal schedule and procedures for such visits." JA 157. Inmate-attorney visitation at the MDC—which had been cancelled again on February 4, 2019, because of a bomb threat—resumed. The District Court (Brodie, J. ) then scheduled a March 1 hearing date for the Defenders' application for a preliminary injunction, directing the parties to prepare "for oral argument on the issue of whether [the Federal Defenders] ha[ve] standing to bring this action." JA 6.⁵

At the March 1 hearing, the District Court reframed the discussion. The government had opposed the Federal Defenders' motion for a preliminary injunction, arguing that the Defenders lacked standing to sue for the stated violations of legal rights, which (they asserted) belonged to MDC inmates alone. In the District Court's view, however, the central issue was not whether the Federal Defenders had Article III standing to bring their claims, but rather whether they could maintain a cause of action under the APA or the Sixth Amendment to press for relief. The District Court expressed concern, in particular, about whether the Federal Defenders' claims satisfied the so-called zone-of-interests test—a test developed in case law and holding generally that a plaintiff has no cause of action if his interests lie outside the zone of interests arguably protected or regulated by the law that the plaintiff seeks to invoke. See Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. , 572 U.S. 118, 126-29, 134 S.Ct. 1377, 188 L.Ed.2d 392 (2014). After hearing from both sides, the District Court denied the Federal Defenders' application for a preliminary injunction, concluding that, under the zone-of-interests doctrine, they had failed to state a claim under either the APA or the Sixth Amendment.

The Defenders declined to amend their complaint to address the flaw perceived by the District Court. Instead, they informed the District Court that they would appeal the dismissal of their suit....