Imannun Abdut Tawwab (A/k/a Eric Caesar) v. Paul W. Metz, 554 F.2d 22 (2d Cir. 1977). · Go Syfert
Search
Imannun Abdut Tawwab (A/k/a Eric Caesar) v. Paul W. Metz, 554 F.2d 22 (2d Cir. 1977). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
43 citation events (27 in the last 25 years) across 10 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Hinton v. Warden, No. 1:24-cv-01212 (D. Md. Aug. 8, 2024)
Treatment trajectory · 1977 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1977 2001 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 23 Transfer of prisoners and policy changes18 citing caseschange in policy7 citing courts put it this way
Show 8 more citing cases
  • Jerry Young v. Thomas A. Coughlin, Iii, K. Weaver, 866 F.2d 567 (2d Cir. 1989).published
    See Tawwab v. Metz, 554 F.2d 22, 23-24 (2d Cir.1977).
  • Bowie v. Weber, No. 1:24-cv-03480 (D. Md. Mar. 5, 2025).
    See, e.g., Tawwab v. Metz, 554 F.2d 22, 23-24 (2d Cir. 1977); Bradley v. Judges of Superior Court, 531 F.2d 413 (9th Cir. 1976); Locke v. Bd. of Public Instruction, 499 F.2d 359 (5th Cir. 1974); Wilkinson v. Skinner, 462 F.2d 670 (2d Cir.…
  • Kelly v. Acting Warden Ronald Shane Weber, No. 1:21-cv-02351 (D. Md. Dec. 16, 2021).
    See, e.g., Tawwab v. Metz, 554 F.2d 22, 23-24 (2d Cir. 1977); Bradley v. Judges of Superior Court, 531 F.2d 413 , 417 (9th Cir. 1976); Locke v. Bd. of Public Instruction, 499 F.2d 359, 364-65 (5th Cir. 1974); Wilkinson v. Skinner, 462 F.2d…
  • Scheuerman v. State of MD, No. 8:18-cv-02655 (D. Md. Jan. 21, 2020).
    See, e.g., Tawwab v. Metz, 554 F.2d 22, 23-24 (2d Cir. 1977); Bradley v. Judges of Superior Court, 531 F.2d 413 (9th Cir. 1976); Locke v. Bd. of Public Instruction, 499 F.2d 359 (5th Cir. 1974); Wilkinson v. Skinner, 462 F.2d 670 (2d Cir.…
  • Rico v. Aven, No. 8:18-cv-01951 (D. Md. Aug. 6, 2019).
    See, e.g., Tawwab v. Metz, 554 F.2d 22, 23-24 (2d Cir. 1977); Bradley v. Judges of Superior Court, 531 F.2d 413 (9th Cir. 1976); Locke v. Bd. of Pub.
  • Rico v. Green, No. 8:18-cv-01949 (D. Md. Aug. 6, 2019).
    See, e.g., Tawwab v. Metz, 554 F.2d 22, 23-24 (2d Cir. 1977); Bradley v. Judges of Superior Court, 531 F.2d 413 (9th Cir. 1976); Locke v. Bd. of Pub.
  • Rico v. Malagari, No. 8:18-cv-01950 (D. Md. Aug. 6, 2019).
    See, e.g., Tawwab v. Metz, 554 F.2d 22, 23-24 (2d Cir. 1977); Bradley v. Judges of Superior Court, 531 F.2d 413 (9th Cir. 1976); Locke v. Bd. of Pub.
  • Rico v. White, No. 8:18-cv-01953 (D. Md. Aug. 6, 2019).
    See, e.g., Tawwab v. Metz, 554 F.2d 22, 23-24 (2d Cir. 1977); Bradley v. Judges of Superior Court, 531 F.2d 413 (9th Cir. 1976); Locke v. Bd. of Pub.
At page 24 Establishing mootness through official policy changes5 citing casesexplaining that where a “change in policy is embodied in an official prison document,” the defendants had sufficiently established mootness1 citing court put it this way
  • Knight v. New York State Dep't of Corr., No. 7:18-cv-07172 (S.D.N.Y. July 10, 2020).
    (explaining that where a “change in policy is embodied in an official prison document,” the defendants had sufficiently established mootness)
  • Samele v. Zucker, 324 F. Supp. 3d 313 (E.D.N.Y. 2018).published
    The voluntary change occurred in the form of a new, superceding Directive, and as 'this change in policy is embodied in an official prison document it is absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expecte…
  • Hilton v. Wright, 235 F.R.D. 40 (N.D.N.Y. 2006).published
    Defendants rely heavily on Tawwab v. Metz, 554 F.2d 22, 24 (2d Cir.1977) and Armstrong v. Ward, 529 F.2d 1132, 1135-36 (2d Cir.1976) in arguing that Dr. Wright’s change in policy and his unconditional statement that he has no intention of…
  • United States v. New York City Transit Auth., 97 F.3d 672 (2d Cir. 1996).published
    The Transit Authority, relying on Tawwab v. Metz, 554 F.2d 22, 24 (2d Cir.1977), argues that a change in policy embodied in the official document of a governmental entity demonstrates that there can be no reasonable likelihood that the wro…
  • Prison Legal News v. James McDonough, 200 F. App'x 873 (11th Cir. 2006).unpublished
    See Tawwab v. Metz, 554 F.2d 22, 24 (2d Cir.1977) (per curiam) (ruling that a claim for injunctive relief is moot when a change in official policy rectifies the alleged injustice); see also, United States v. Concentrated Phosphate Export A…
Other citing cases6 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Imannun Abdut TAWWAB (a/K/A Eric Caesar) Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
Paul W. METZ, Individually and as Superintendent of Great Meadow Correctional Facility Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
722, Docket 76-2128.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Apr 11, 1977.
Published opinion
554 F.2d 22
Daniel J. Steinbock, New York City (Pierce Gerety, Jr., Claudia Angelos, Elizabeth A. Gaynes, Prisoners’ Legal Services of New York, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff s-appellants.., Nicholas G. Garaufis, Deputy Asst. Atty. Gen., New York City (Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen., Samuel A. Hirshowitz, First Asst. Atty. Gen., State of New York, New York City, of counsel), for defendants-appellees.
Feinberg, Gurfein, Meskill, Per Curiam.
Cited by 33 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

This is a civil rights action brought, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, by eight New York State prisoners of the Sunni Muslim faith. They complain that various regulations of Great Meadow Correctional Facility infringed rights guaranteed them under the First, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. The complaint seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, as well as damages. The action was brought in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. In a careful and thorough opinion, Judge Foley dismissed the complaint for failure to state claims upon which relief could be granted. We vacate the judgment and remand the case to the district court, with instructions to dismiss the complaint as moot.

Appellants complain of two policies of the prison. The first concerns classes in religious instruction and Arabic given by Sunni ministers not connected with the prison. Although the prison authorities allowed such classes, the number of inmates participating was limited to fifteen. The plaintiffs claim that this violates their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. [1]

The second claim relates to the policy of the prison governing certain prisoners’ access to their lawyers. [2] The complaint alleges that the authorities would allow only one prisoner at a time to see his attorney. [3] At argument, the attorney for respondent informed the Court that the policy of Great Meadow concerning attorney visitation had been changed, and that prisoners were no longer subject to the restriction in[*24] question. This change in policy is embodied in an official prison document which was handed up to the Court during oral argument. Accordingly, it is “absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur,” United States v. Concentrated Phosphate Export Ass’n, Inc., 393 U.S. 199, 203, 89 S.Ct. 361, 364, 21 L.Ed.2d 344 (1968), and this claim for injunctive relief is moot.

It further appears that none of the appellants is presently at Great Meadow. Therefore, the demand for an injunction against the limitation on the size of classes is moot, and we do not reach the merits of the issue. See Mawhinney v. Henderson, 542 F.2d 1, 2 (2d Cir. 1976).

The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the district court with instructions to dismiss the complaint as moot. [4]

1

. It is not at all clear whether any of the eight plaintiffs were ever turned away from a class because of this rule.

2

. The claim concerning attorney visitation was made only by plaintiffs incarcerated in a special segregation unit, “F-Block.” The policy apparently caused a delay of one day in seeing an attorney in the incident described in the pleadings. Appellants claim this as a violation of their Sixth Amendment rights. The complaint also contained allegations that some of the appellants had been put in “F-Block” without a hearing. The record clearly discloses that a proper hearing was held in each instance.

3

. It is not clear from the record if this was the usual practice at Great Meadow. In his opinion, Judge Foley described it as an isolated incident.

4

. The complaint also contained a general demand for damages. Any award of damages on the facts of this case, as alleged in the complaint, would be so remote and speculative that it could not stand. Compare Mawhinney v. Henderson, supra (allegations of grossly unconstitutional actions and violations of prison regulations). Cf. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 251, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1977).