MEMORANDUM & ORDER

RAYMOND J. DEARIE, District Judge.

Plaintiff Christopher Williams was a pre-trial detainee at the Anna M. Kross Center ("AMKC") on Rikers Island from approximately January 7 to January 17, 2016. Williams alleges that during that time, the City of New York (the "City") and other related Defendants engaged in a practice at the AMKC and other Department of Corrections ("DOC") facilities (collectively, the "DOC Facilities") known as "cross-tour" supervision ("cross-touring"1). Cross-touring reduced the level of correctional supervision over pre-trial detainees and inmates housed in the DOC Facilities. Among other legal and equitable remedies,2 Williams seeks a preliminary injunction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to prevent future cross-touring.

Williams argues that by cross-touring, Defendants have (1) failed to ensure adequate supervision and protection for Williams and similarly situated pre-trial detainees and inmates, (2) caused an increase in inmate-on-inmate violence, and (3) created unconstitutional conditions of confinement, in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution,3 as well as under New York State law. See Plaintiff Mem. in Support of Mot. for Prelim. Injunction ("Plaintiff Mem."), ECF No. 19, at 2-3. Williams alleges that from January 7 to January 17, 2016, DOC officers assigned to his unit "routinely abandoned their post." Id. at 10. More specifically, he alleges that on January 17, 2016, Defendant Furrel Canteen was assigned to a cross-tour duty in Williams' open dormitory unit at the AMKC, which housed more than 20 inmates. Plaintiff Mem., ECF No. 19, at 10. While Defendant Canteen was absent from Williams' unit, on a cross-tour, Williams was brutally attacked by approximately six inmates in the dormitory bathroom. Id. Williams claims that his resulting physical and emotional injuries were caused by the City's cross-touring practice.4 Id. Defendants assert that the harm Williams alleges does not amount to a violation of the U.S. Constitution.5 Def. Mem. in Opp'n to Plaintiff Mem. ("Def. Mem."), ECF No. 24, at 3. They also note that the violence Williams experienced cannot be linked to cross-touring,6 because it occurred in one of the housing unit bathrooms, which, according to DOC policy, are never patrolled by corrections officers. Id. at 3. Defendants also assert that cross-touring has been discontinued, as evidenced by recently submitted DOC staffing charts. See Def. Submission (Dec. 26, 2017); Def. Mem., ECF No. 24, at 6, 9.7

The Court held a hearing and oral argument in this case on December 20, 2017. The parties declined to present witness testimony. See Letter from Christopher Williams Regarding 12/6/2017 Hearing, ECF No. 26.

Williams is skeptical that cross-touring has been permanently eliminated. Plaintiff Third Supp. Reply, ECF No. 46, at 1.8 He insists that the City's recent staffing changes were made in response to this litigation. He also suggests that there is—at minimum—an unreasonable risk that cross-touring will resume at any time.9 See id. at 1-2. For the reasons explained below, we disagree. Williams' request for a preliminary injunction is denied.

DISCUSSION

A. Justiciability Concerns

We address two threshold issues—standing and mootness—before evaluating Williams' request for relief.10 First, we are skeptical that Williams has standing to serve as class representative, given that he is no longer incarcerated. See U.S. Const., art. III § 2; see also Cooper v. U.S. Postal Serv., 577 F.3d 479, 489 (2d Cir. 2009) (citations omitted) (article III requires that "(1) the plaintiff must have suffered an injury-in-fact; (2) there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct at issue; and (3) the injury must be likely to be redressed by a favorable decision."); Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984).

We also find that Williams' claim for injunctive relief is moot. Cf Maneely v. City of Newburgh, 208 F.R.D. 69, 72-74 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (citations omitted). Defendants have demonstrated, to the Court's satisfaction, that the City has voluntarily provided the relief Williams seeks by eliminating cross-touring in the DOC Facilities. See Plaintiff Third Supp. Reply, ECF No. 46, at 5. It is true that "a defendant's voluntary cessation of a challenged [unconstitutional] practice does not deprive a federal court of its power to determine the legality of that practice." Maneely, 208 F.R.D. at 72-74 (quoting Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 189 (2000)); see also Los Angeles Cty v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 631 (1979). A court must have discretion to ensure that the defendant is not "free to return to his old ways." See Friends of the Earth, 528 U.S. at 170 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Rivers v. Doar, 638 F.Supp.2d 333, 337 (E.D.N.Y. 2009). Still, a case can be mooted if "subsequent events ma[k]e it absolutely clear," or the defendant can show "no reasonable expectation that the alleged violation will recur." Friends of the Earth, 528 U.S. at 170, 189 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The party opposing a preliminary injunction bears the "very heavy burden of demonstrating (1) with assurance that there is no reasonable expectation that the conduct will recur. . .and (2) interim relief or events have completely and irrevocably eradicated the effects of the alleged violation." Corner v. Cisneros, 37 F.3d 775, 800 (2d Cir. 1994) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). For the time being, at least, Defendants have satisfied this burden.11

The City represents that it has now permanently staffed "C" post corrections officers in the areas12 that were previously supervised by only "A" and "B" post officers, and that cross-touring has thus been eliminated. Hrg Tr. (Dec. 20, 2017) at 7:21-8:23; see also Rivers, 638 F. Supp. 2d at 337 (quoting Harrison, 981 F.2d at 59) ("[S]ome deference must be accorded to a state's representations that [the offending] conduct has been discontinued"); but see Friends of the Earth, 528 U.S. at 709-10 (discussing presumption used to "refute assertion of mootness by a defendant who, when sued in a complaint that alleges presented or threatened injury, ceases the complained-of activity"); Davis v. City of New York, 812 F.Supp.2d 333, 340 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (quoting Armstrong v. Ward, 529 F.2d 1132, 1136 (2d Cir.1976)) ("determination of whether there is a reasonable expectation that the wrong will be repeated is not foreclosed by expressions of intention by [] officials."). The assertions made by the City in its briefing (ECF Nos. 19, 32, 35, 39, and 46), in affidavits, declarations, and submissions in support thereof, and at the hearing held before the Court on December 20, 2017, satisfy us that the City's "allegedly wrongful behavior"—in this case, cross-touring—"c[an][]not reasonably be expected to recur," and that the effects of cross-touring have been eliminated. See Friends of the Earth, 528 U.S. at 170; see also Fisher v. Koehler, 692 F.Supp. 1519, 1566 (1988) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). In making these findings, the Court relies, inter alia, upon the following representations in the City's papers:

Williams argues that the City's past cross-touring practices and recent changes made to them after the onset of this litigation—at times with and at times without approval from the SCOC14—pose a future risk to pre-trial detainees and inmates at the DOC Facilities, sufficient to justify an exception to the mootness doctrine. See Plaintiff Mem., ECF No. 19, at 4-8; Plaintiff

Third Supp. Reply, ECF No. 46, at 1-2, 5. We are unconvinced. We recognize that Defendants have failed to provide records of "C" post staffing for all of the DOC Facilities, or to demonstrate that funding has been allocated for permanent, as opposed to temporary, "C" post staffing. See Def. Submission (December 26, 2017). Still, while the potential gravity of the situation warranted greater clarity from Defendants in their most recent submission, the record is devoid of any evidence, statistics, or research suggesting that—absent our intervention— Defendants' discontinued cross-touring practices are likely to be reinstated. Cf Plaintiff Third Supp. Reply, ECF No. 46, at 3-4; Plaintiff Reply, ECF No. 32, at 3-8 (noting that DOC Facilities have received SCOC citations for cross-touring as recently as 2015 and 2016); but see Rivers, 638 F. Supp. 2d at 337-338 (cases in this Circuit have dismissed as moot challenges to voluntarily abandoned statutes or ordinances where "the record presented no affirmative evidence that the challenged provision would be reenacted") (citing e.g., Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. Town of Orange Connecticut, 303 F.3d 450, 451-52 (2d Cir. 2002) ("[T]here is no reason to think that, having completely revised its regulations through proper procedures, the Town has any intention of returning to the prior regulatory regime.")). We are satisfied with the City's assurances that cross-touring or any similar staffing reductions have been discontinued. See Friends of the Earth, 528 U.S. at 193 (quoting City of Mesquite, 455 U.S. 283, 289 (1981)) (defendant's voluntary cessation of challenged practice may not moot case, but "[sjuch abandonment is an important factor bearing on the question whether a court should exercise its power to enjoin the defendant from renewing the practice").

B. Williams' Request for Injunctive Relief

Separate and apart from these justiciability concerns, Williams fails to make the showing required to justify the extraordinary remedy of injunctive relief. "The standard for issuance of a preliminary injunction [in this Circuit] is well settled." Glendora v. Hostetter, 916 F.Supp. 1339, 1341 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 104 F.3d 353 (2d Cir. 1996) (citing Resolution Trust Corp. v. Elman, 949 F.2d 624, 626 (2d Cir. 1991)). A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must show that he will suffer "(a) irreparable harm [in the absence of an injunction] and (b) either (1) likelihood of success on the merits or (2) sufficiently serious questions going to the merits to make them a fair ground for litigation and a balance of hardships tipping decidedly toward the party requesting the preliminary [injunctive] relief." Int'l Dairy Foods Ass'n v. Amestoy, 92 F.3d 67, 70 (2d Cir. 1996) (citations omitted); Union Carbide Agr. Products Co., Inc. v. Costle, 632 F.2d 1014 (2d Cir. 1980) (the second of these merits-based tests is the "less onerous of the[] two"). In addition, the plaintiff must show "that the public interest would not be disserved by the issuance of a preliminary injunction." Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 61 F.Supp.3d 296, 299 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (citing Salinger v. Coifing, 607 F.3d 68, 79-80 (2d Cir. 2010)); see also New York ex. Rel. v. Schneiderman v. Actavis PLC, 787 F.3d 638, 650 (2d Cir. 2015).

Critically, Williams fails to establish that he and the putative class members will suffer actual and imminent irreparable harm absent an injunction. See Jackson Dairy, Inc. v. H.P. Hood & Sons, Inc., 596 F.2d 70, 72 (2d Cir. 1979) (party seeking preliminary injunction must demonstrate continuing irreparable harm that is "not remote or speculative") (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also In re WorldCom, Inc., Securities Litigation, 354 F.Supp.2d 455, 463, 469 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) ("Irreparable harm is perhaps the single most important prerequisite for the issuance of a preliminary injunction.") (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Williams offers no evidence to suggest that the cross-touring of "B" post officers was the cause of his assault in the AMKC dormitory bathroom, or that it has or will cause broader inmate-on-inmate violence in the DOC Facilities. Although "an allegation of a violation of a constitutional right under the Eight Amendment challenging conditions of confinement in a prison creates a presumption of irreparable harm potentially justifying equitable relief," Zolnowski v. Cty. of Erie, 944 F.Supp. 1096, 1109 (W.D.N.Y. 1996) (citing cases), that presumption is not the end-all of our review, see Donohue v. Mangano, 886 F.Supp.2d 126, 150 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (merely asserting a constitutional injury is "insufficient to automatically trigger a finding of irreparable harm" where the constitutional deprivation is not shown convincingly) (citations omitted).

Rather, we must evaluate the impact of the allegedly unconstitutional practice at issue upon Williams and the prisoners and detainees in his putative class. See Zolnowski, 944 F. Supp. at 1110 (courts must "examine the actual effect of challenged conditions upon the [prisoners'] well-being") (citations omitted) (emphasis in original); see also Jolly v. Coughlin, 76 F.3d 468, 482 (2d Cir. 1996) (that plaintiff suffered "physical effects of his confinement" was an independent basis for conclusion that he would suffer irreparable harm). As is required of all § 1983 plaintiffs, Williams must "prove that the [Defendants' actions were] a proximate cause of [his] injury" and that Defendants "deprived [Williams] of his [federally protected] rights." See Beard v. Town of Monroe, No. 3:13-CV-1714 (JBA), 2015 WL 8023632, at *11 (D. Conn. Dec. 4, 2015), aff'd, 666 F. App'x 62 (2d Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (explaining that § 1983's proximate cause analysis "incorporates common-law tort causation principles"); see also Carmichael v. City of New York, 34 F.Supp.3d 252, 262, 268-69 (E.D.N.Y. 2014); Rahman v. Fisher, 607 F.Supp.2d 580, 584 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).

Williams fails to make this showing. He offers no evidence of "a direct causal link between the [allegedly unconstitutional cross-touring] and the deprivation of [his] federal rights." See Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs of Bryan Cty., Okl. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 397 (1997); see also Gibralter v. City of New York, 612 F.Supp. 125, 131 (E.D.N.Y. 1985) (plaintiffs showing was inadequate where he failed to "allege facts sufficient to suggest the necessary causal link between individual incidents of violence and City's official decision-making bodies"). And he has not demonstrated that Defendants and their policies were or are the "moving force" behind inmate-on-inmate violence in the DOC Facilities. Cf. Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs of Bryan Cty., 520 U.S. at 400, 404-05. It is not enough for Williams to simply point to conduct attributable to the City—in this case cross-touring—and claim that it, as opposed to a host of other factors that could encourage inmate-on-inmate violence in the DOC Facilities, violated his constitutional rights. See also Beard, 2015 WL 8023632, at * 11 ("A mere possibility of [] causation is not enough." Where the causal link is "one of pure speculation and conjecture, or the probabilities are at best evenly balanced," the court must decide in favor of the defendant)) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Barreto v. Cty. of Suffolk, No. 10-CV-0028 (JS) (AKT), 2016 WL 5678613, at *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2016) (plaintiff "failed to adduce evidence, such as statistical data, that the County's housing policy contributes to increased violence.").

We recognize that "a remedy for unsafe conditions need not await a tragic event," Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 33-34 (1993), and that the instances of inmate-on-inmate violence cited by Williams, and that Williams experienced, are unacceptable.15 They are of great concern to this Court.16 Nor may fiscal constraints impair the grave responsibility to take all reasonable precautions to insure the safety and dignity of those entrusted to the care of our penal institutions. It may well be that inmate violence is, as a practical matter, unavoidable. But that sad fact of life cannot excuse any level of indifference to such perils. However, the record Williams presents leaves us unconvinced at this point that cross-touring has been a substantial factor in instances of inmate-on-inmate violence in the DOC Facilities. Cf Beard, 2015 WL 8023632, at * 11. As a result, the Court's equitable remedies are unavailable to Williams at this juncture.

For the same reasons that he fails to satisfy the irreparable harm prong of the preliminary injunction analysis, Williams is also unable to satisfy even the less burdensome of the two merits-based prongs: demonstrating sufficiently serious question going to the merits of his constitutional claims to make them a fair ground for litigation and a balance of hardships tipping decidedly" towards him.17 See Int'l Dairy Foods, 92 F.3d at 70; see also Carmichael, 34 F. Supp. 3d at 268-69 (when "the causal connection is `too tenuous,' the constitutional deprivation is not the proximate cause of actual injury."); see also Barreto, 2016 WL 5678613, at *8-9 (quoting Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 562 (1979)) ("The inquiry of federal courts into prison management must be limited to the issue of whether a particular system violates any prohibition of the Constitution") (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).18 As a result, we reserve judgment on the merits of Williams' constitutional claims until further discovery takes place.

Finally, Williams is unable to demonstrate that the preliminary injunction would be in the public interest. See Getty, 61 F. Supp. at 296. It is unquestionably in the public interest to ensure that pre-trial detainees and inmates are not subjected to unconstitutional conditions of confinement in our city, state, and federal correctional facilities. However, in light of the aforementioned lack of evidence that cross-touring will resume or that the practice has spawned a demonstrable increase in institutional violence, we are unwilling at this time to interfere with the operations of the DOC and its facilities. See Bell 441 U.S. at 548, 562 (critical of courts becoming "increasingly enmeshed in the minutiae of prison operations," given that "operation of our correctional facilities is particularly the province of the Legislative and Executive Branches of our Government, not the Judicial"); see also Stewart v. New York City Transit Auth., No. 3-CV-10329 (RWS), 2006 WL 270100, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 6, 2006) (noting the "well-established rule" that "bars federal courts from interfering with non-federal government operations") (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); Block v. Rutherford, 468 U.S. 576, 584-85 (1984) (prison administrators should be "accorded wide-ranging deference in the adoption and execution of policies and practices that in their judgment are needed to preserve internal order and discipline and to maintain institutional security") (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

The Court reiterates its long-standing concern over the conditions that Williams and other pre-trial detainees and inmates experience in the DOC Facilities. See New York State Commission of Correction, The Worst Offenders: The Most Problematic Local Correctional Facilities of New York State (February 2018), available at http://www.scoc.ny.gov/pdfdocs/Problematic-Jails-Report-2-2018.pdf. But the evidence before the Court fails to demonstrate any effect of the cross-touring practice upon Williams or members of the putative class.19 See Lareau v. Manson, 507 F.Supp. 1177, 1178 (D. Conn. 1980), aff'd in part, modified in part and remanded, 651 F.2d 96 (2d Cir. 1981) ("In the absence of clearly unconstitutional conditions, the judiciary should not, of course, become involved in the operations of correctional institutions. The day-to-day administration of such institutions is a matter for professional administrators, not judges.").

In this case, past practices, now abandoned, present no risk of enhanced danger to residents of the DOC Facilities. The Court is persuaded by the documentary evidence and representations of counsel that cross-touring has been permanently discontinued and that an injunction is unnecessary to ensure that the City does not reinstate cross-touring in its facilities. We caution the City and its corrections officials that we will not hesitate to reconsider the matter should the City's representations made not be realized as indicated. Judicial remedies are not foreclosed, should discovery reveal evidence that cross-touring or any similar practice presents an intolerable danger to the custodial population. See Friends of the Earth, 528 U.S. at 193, 195 (quoting Schlesinger v. Reservists Comm. to Stop the War, 418 U.S. 208, 222 (1974)) ("[d]enial of injunctive relief does not necessarily mean that the district court has concluded there is no prospect of future violations to deter. . .[and the] federal courts should aim to ensure `the framing of relief no broader than required by the precise facts.")

CONCLUSION

For the reasons explained above, the Court finds that a preliminary injunction is unwarranted. Williams' motion is denied.

SO ORDERED.