Crawford v. Cuomo
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
796 F.3d 252 (2015)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
Simon Prindle (defendant) was a corrections officer at a New York prison. Former prisoner James Crawford and current prisoner Thaddeus Corley (plaintiffs) sued New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, Prindle, and others in federal district court for violating their Eighth Amendment rights. Crawford alleged that Prindle grabbed him, forced him against a wall, and fondled his genitals and thighs for an extended period under the guise of a search. When Crawford objected, Prindle said Crawford had no rights and that Prindle could touch him anywhere he wanted. Prindle also threatened to harm Crawford or place him in solitary confinement if he resisted. Corley alleged that Prindle kicked Corley’s wife out of a visiting room, then fondled and threatened Corley like he had Crawford, claiming he was searching for an erection. Crawford and Corley also alleged that other prisoners had complained to the prison that Prindle had made sexually demeaning comments to them, such as referencing their penises, and forced them to bend over and expose their anuses under the guise of anal-cavity searches. The district court dismissed the complaint, ruling that (1) Crawford and Corley had each alleged only a single incident and (2) sexual abuse by a corrections officer could violate the Eighth Amendment only if it occurred repeatedly. Crawford and Corley appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Walker, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

