Inmates of Attica Correctional Facility v. Rockefeller is the name shared by two Second Circuit decisions that came out of the 1971 Attica prison uprising. The first, in 1971, held that inmates beaten and tortured after the state retook the prison had a viable Eighth Amendment claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and could pursue it as a class action, and it ordered a preliminary injunction against further abuse. The second, in 1973, held that federal courts cannot compel federal prosecutors to bring criminal charges against the state officials responsible, even where a civil rights statute says prosecution is “required.” Together the two rulings became touchstones on prisoner civil rights and on the limits of judicial power over charging decisions.
Two Cases, One Name
The litigation is easy to confuse because both appeals carry the same caption. The 1971 decision, reported at 453 F.2d 12, is the civil rights and injunction case. The 1973 decision, reported at 477 F.2d 375, is the prosecutorial discretion case. They arose from the same events but answered different questions, and courts cite them for different propositions.
The Facts the Ruling Rests On
On September 9, 1971, more than 1,000 inmates at Attica Correctional Facility seized the prison and took 42 staff members hostage. Negotiations ran four days and broke down over inmates’ demand for complete amnesty. On September 13, Governor Nelson Rockefeller and Corrections Commissioner Russell Oswald ordered the prison retaken by force. A state police helicopter dropped tear gas over the yard while officers fired thousands of rounds into the facility, killing 29 inmates and 10 hostages and wounding nearly 90 others.
State officials initially claimed inmates had killed the hostages by slashing their throats. Autopsies by the Monroe County medical examiner found that every hostage had died of gunshot wounds. Of the 43 total deaths, all but four were caused by law enforcement gunfire.
The abuse the lawsuit was actually built on came after the shooting stopped. Inmates were forced to run naked through gauntlets of guards wielding clubs, rifle butts, and nightsticks. National Guard medics saw stretchers deliberately tipped over and injured prisoners beaten on medical carts. Witnesses included National Guard soldiers, civilian medical personnel, and observers invited to the prison by the governor’s own office. That breadth of independent corroboration is what made the case legally viable.
The 1971 Ruling on Post-Retaking Abuse
Inmates filed a class action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal statute allowing suits against state officials who violate constitutional rights while acting under color of law.1Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 42 U.S. Code 1983 – Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights The complaint raised three constitutional claims: cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment, denial of due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and denial of counsel during interrogations under the Sixth Amendment.2Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. Inmates of Attica Correctional Facility v. Rockefeller
On September 14, 1971, the day after the retaking, inmates sought an emergency preliminary injunction. Judge John Curtin of the Western District of New York denied it, relying on assurances from Walter Dunbar, the state’s Executive Deputy Commissioner of Corrections, that no investigations had begun and that a panel of five impartial observers appointed by the governor would monitor conditions.3Justia. Inmates of the Attica Correctional Facility v. Rockefeller – 453 F.2d 12 Judge Curtin later dismissed the complaint to the extent it sought permanent relief and refused to certify a class covering the roughly 2,000 inmates at Attica.
The Second Circuit reversed in unusually blunt language. The court found the treatment of inmates “far exceeded what our society will tolerate on the part of officers of the law in custody of defenseless prisoners” and concluded it “amounted to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of their Eighth Amendment rights.”3Justia. Inmates of the Attica Correctional Facility v. Rockefeller – 453 F.2d 12 Inmates, the court noted, were “at the mercy of their keepers, many of whom, on the testimony below, have already subjected inmates to barbarous abuse and mistreatment.”
The court ordered three things. The district court was to enter a preliminary injunction prohibiting all forms of physical abuse, torture, and beatings by state officials. The lower court was to consider appointing federal monitors inside the prison. And the brutality claim could proceed as a class action.3Justia. Inmates of the Attica Correctional Facility v. Rockefeller – 453 F.2d 12 The federal-monitor remedy signaled that the court did not trust the state to police its own officers, and the approach later became common in prison conditions litigation nationally.
The 1973 Ruling on Prosecutorial Discretion
The second case asked a different question. Inmates went back to federal court seeking an order that would compel federal prosecutors to bring criminal charges against the state officials responsible for the assault and the abuse that followed. Their theory rested on 42 U.S.C. § 1987, which says federal attorneys are “authorized and required” to prosecute violations of federal civil rights statutes. The inmates read “required” as stripping prosecutors of the usual discretion not to charge.4Justia. Inmates of Attica Correctional Facility v. Rockefeller – 477 F.2d 375
The Second Circuit rejected the argument. The word “required” was not enough to override the separation-of-powers principle that charging decisions belong to the executive branch. Federal courts, the opinion observed, had “traditionally and, to our knowledge, uniformly refrained from overturning, at the instance of a private person, discretionary decisions of federal prosecuting authorities not to prosecute.”4Justia. Inmates of Attica Correctional Facility v. Rockefeller – 477 F.2d 375
The ruling became one of the most frequently cited authorities in American law on prosecutorial discretion. A private citizen cannot use the courts to force a criminal prosecution, however serious the underlying conduct. For the inmates, it closed the door on criminal accountability. No state official was ever prosecuted for the killings at Attica or the abuse that followed the retaking. The first criminal charges against Attica guards for beating an inmate did not come until 2015, forty-four years after the uprising.
Supervisor Liability and Section 1983
The civil case named not just individual guards but supervisors and officials up the chain of command to the governor. Under Section 1983, a supervisor is not liable simply because a subordinate committed a violation. A plaintiff must show a direct link between the supervisor’s own conduct and the harm.
Courts have recognized several ways to make that showing. A supervisor is liable if they personally directed the unconstitutional acts, set in motion a chain of events they knew or should have known would lead to a violation, learned of ongoing abuses and failed to intervene, or showed reckless indifference to prisoners’ rights through inadequate training or policies. The common thread is that a supervisor must have done something, or deliberately failed to do something, that caused the constitutional injury.
Qualified immunity added another layer. Officials are shielded from personal liability unless the right they violated was clearly established at the time. The Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment was clearly established by 1971, but proving that specific officials personally knew of and disregarded the post-retaking abuse required detailed factual development that took years.
How the Litigation Ended
The damages case ran through the federal courts for more than a quarter century. On January 4, 2000, the parties settled. New York agreed to pay $8 million into a fund for distribution among qualified class members and $4 million to plaintiffs’ attorneys for 25 years of legal work, a total of $12 million.5United States District Court Western District of New York. Case 1:75-cv-00132-MAT-JWF – Decision and Order
Of roughly 1,281 inmates who had been in D Yard during the retaking, about 580 filed claims. Judge Michael Telesca approved 502, with individual awards ranging from $6,500 to $125,000 depending on the severity of injuries. New York did not admit liability or wrongdoing as part of the agreement.5United States District Court Western District of New York. Case 1:75-cv-00132-MAT-JWF – Decision and Order Many of the original plaintiffs had died before the money was distributed.
What the case left behind is doctrinal rather than monetary. The 1971 decision confirmed that prisoners retain enforceable constitutional rights and can enforce them as a class, and it gave later plaintiffs a model for injunctive relief and outside monitoring in prison conditions cases. The 1973 decision drew the line the other way, keeping the criminal charging power out of judicial and private hands. Both are still cited today for those propositions.