Case: Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services (IPAS) Commission v. Commissioner, Indiana Department of Correction

1:08-cv-01317 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana

Filed Date: Oct. 1, 2008

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On Oct. 1, 2008, the Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services Commission (IPAS) filed this lawsuit on behalf of a group of prisoners with serious mental illness in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. IPAS, represented by the ACLU, proceeded under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Indiana Department of Corrections (IDOC), asking the court for injunctive and declaratory relief. IPAS alleged that IDOC failed to adequately treat the prisoners in non-segregated and therapeutic …

On Oct. 1, 2008, the Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services Commission (IPAS) filed this lawsuit on behalf of a group of prisoners with serious mental illness in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. IPAS, represented by the ACLU, proceeded under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Indiana Department of Corrections (IDOC), asking the court for injunctive and declaratory relief. IPAS alleged that IDOC failed to adequately treat the prisoners in non-segregated and therapeutic environments, as required by the Eighth Amendment, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Rehabilitation Act.

Specifically, IPAS claimed that mentally ill prisoners were regularly held in isolation at multiple prisons throughout the state, and, for a number of them, the only contact they had with mental health staff was through brief conversations at their cell doors. The continued confinement of these mentally ill prisoners without adequate mental health care, IPAS argued, violated the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment. Additionally, by placing these prisoners in segregated and isolated confinement, the state discriminated against them in violation of the ADA and Rehabilitation Act.

IPAS is an agency created by Indiana state law pursuant to the federal Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act. It is charged with advocating for and protecting the rights and interests of, among other parties, individuals with mental illness. IPAS claimed in its complaint that, because of its unique role in protecting the interests of mentally ill adults in Indiana, it has standing to bring suit on their behalf.

On December 15, 2008, IDOC filed a motion to dismiss for lack of standing and jurisdiction; the state argued that IPAS's complaint presented only an "intramural" dispute between two state agencies, and should be resolved by the governor. On July 21, 2009, the court (Judge David F. Hamilton) denied IDOC's motion. It held that the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act empowered IPAS to sue on behalf of its mentally ill constituents; and the organization also satisfied the constitutional criteria for standing. The court also held that IPAS was not a traditional state agency and was independent of the governor. 642 F.Supp.2d 872.

On December 2, 2009, IPAS filed an amended complaint seeking class certification for all mentally ill prisoners in Indiana housed in settings that feature extended periods of isolation in cells. On April 27, 2010, the court (Magistrate Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson) granted IPAS's motion to certify the class. 2010 WL 1737821.

On July 25, 2011, after some discovery disputes (see 603 F.3d 365), a bench trial commenced before Judge Tanya Walton Pratt; it lasted five days. On December 31, 2012, the court filed an entry following the bench trial. It found that segregation harms mentally ill prisoners in three ways: (1) the lack of social interaction itself creates problems associated with isolation; (2) the isolation involves significant sensory deprivation; and (3) the enforced idleness exacerbates the prisoners' symptoms of serious mental illness. The court went on to find that the mentally ill prisoners in IDOC segregation units do not receive minimally adequate mental health care and that IDOC has been deliberately indifferent regarding this care in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The court then scheduled a conference with both parties to establish an appropriate remedy to the constitutional violation. 2012e WL 6738517.

From 2013-2016, the parties met to develop a plan for IDOC to remedy the constitutional violations found by the court. They entered status reports periodically throughout the years.

On January 2, 2016, the parties proposed a settlement agreement that prohibited, with some exceptions, the confinement of seriously mentally ill prisoners in restrictive status housing or protective custody (i.e., solitary confinement). As a general rule, no prisoner who was seriously mentally ill would be placed into restrictive housing. The agreement defined severe mental illness to include people who entered solitary with less than severe mental illnesses but whose mental health deteriorated due to solitary. And, the agreement provided for "minimum adequate treatment" for these prisoners. IDOC also agreed to pay $585,000 in attorneys' fees. The agreement would last for three years.

On March 24, 2016, Judge Pratt approved the settlement agreement finding that it was “fair, reasonable, and adequate.” The court was to retain jurisdiction over the case for three years at the conclusion of which the case will be dismissed without prejudice.

On October 16, 2018, a class member filed a motion to order contempt of court, alleging that IDOC failed to comply with the settlement agreement. On October 18, 2018, Judge Pratt denied the motion, finding that no defendant was in contempt.

In March 2019, a short time before the settlement was due to expire, the parties agreed to extend the settlement term. The state wanted to terminate the settlement in a different case about prisoners with serious mental illness at Indiana's Secured Housing Unit, Mast v. Commissioner, No. 2:05-cv-00037 (see related cases). The plaintiffs agreed to that termination if the settlement agreement in this case would be extended until one year after the Mast termination. The Court agreed to this approach.

After a fairness hearing, the Mast district court terminated that case on July 23, 2019. Accordingly, this case's settlement term was extended until July 23, 2020. However, due to a 2018 fire in the Pendleton Treatment Unit and delays in repairs, plaintiffs reported that, as of March 2020, the group therapy requirements specified in the settlement agreement are not being met. Instead of the required 10 hours of of out-of-cell treatment a week, some inmates at Pendleton are only receiving 3-5 hours of group therapy each week. As a result, plaintiffs have proposed extending the settlement an additional one year, to July 23, 2021, to allow the IDOC to achieve and maintain full compliance with the terms of the settlement before its termination. The IDOC is considering this proposal, and the case is ongoing.

Summary Authors

Andrew Junker (10/9/2014)

Jessica Kincaid (2/5/2016)

Hope Brinn (11/17/2018)

Elena Malik (3/12/2020)

Related Cases

Mast v. Indiana Department of Corrections, Southern District of Indiana (2005)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attrorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4799419/parties/indiana-protection-and-advocacy-services-commission-v-commissioner/


Judge(s)

Dinsmore, Mark. J. (Indiana)

Hamilton, David Frank (Indiana)

Lynch, Debra McVicker (Indiana)

Magnus-Stinson, Jane Elizabeth (Indiana)

Pratt, Tanya Walton (Indiana)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Crishon, Thomas E. (Indiana)

Davis, Karen T. (Indiana)

Dial, Debra Jean (Indiana)

Falk, Kenneth J. (Indiana)

Keyes, Melissa (Indiana)

Judge(s)

Dinsmore, Mark. J. (Indiana)

Hamilton, David Frank (Indiana)

Lynch, Debra McVicker (Indiana)

Magnus-Stinson, Jane Elizabeth (Indiana)

Pratt, Tanya Walton (Indiana)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Crishon, Thomas E. (Indiana)

Davis, Karen T. (Indiana)

Dial, Debra Jean (Indiana)

Falk, Kenneth J. (Indiana)

Keyes, Melissa (Indiana)

Mensz, Jan P. (Indiana)

Ricks, Gary W. (Indiana)

Rose, Gavin Minor (Indiana)

Smith, David Ross (Indiana)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Arthur, David A. (Indiana)

Beaver, Eric James (Indiana)

Carter, Stephen (Indiana)

Findley, Bryan (Indiana)

Hornbacher, Wade J. (Indiana)

Quigley, Thomas D (Indiana)

Expert/Monitor/Master

Dvoskin, Joel A. (Arizona)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

1:08-cv-01317

11-01504

Docket [PACER]

Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services Commission v. Commissioner, Indiana Department of Correction

March 10, 2020

March 10, 2020

Docket
1

1:08-cv-01317

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services Commission v. Commissioner, Indiana Department of Correction

Oct. 1, 2008

Oct. 1, 2008

Complaint
22

1:08-cv-01317

Motion to Dismiss

Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services Commission v. Commissioner, Indiana Department of Correction

Dec. 15, 2008

Dec. 15, 2008

Pleading / Motion / Brief
43

1:08-cv-01317

Case Management Plan

Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services Commission v. Commissioner, Indiana Department of Correction

April 9, 2009

April 9, 2009

Pleading / Motion / Brief
58

1:08-cv-01317

Entry on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss

Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services Commission v. Commissioner, Indiana Department of Correction

642 F.Supp.2d 872

July 21, 2009

July 21, 2009

Order/Opinion
75

1:08-cv-01317

Amended Class Action Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services Commission v. Commissioner, Indiana Department of Correction

Nov. 12, 2009

Nov. 12, 2009

Complaint
109

1:08-cv-01317

Order [Granting Individual Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class]

Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services Commission v. Commissioner, Indiana Department of Correction

2010 WL 1737821

April 27, 2010

April 27, 2010

Order/Opinion
120

1:08-cv-01317

Qualified Protective Order Pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and Indiana Statutes

Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services Commission v. Commissioner, Indiana Department of Correction

June 1, 2010

June 1, 2010

Order/Opinion
153

1:08-cv-01317

Order [Granting Parties' Joint Motion Allowing Disclosure of Identities of Interviewees and Providing for a Protective Order]

Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services Commission v. Commissioner, Indiana Department of Correction

Nov. 22, 2010

Nov. 22, 2010

Order/Opinion
170

1:08-cv-01317

Order [Denying Motion for Leave to Appeal in Forma Pauperis]

Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services Commission v. Commissioner, Indiana Department of Correction

March 28, 2011

March 28, 2011

Order/Opinion

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4799419/indiana-protection-and-advocacy-services-commission-v-commissioner/

Last updated Aug. 29, 2022, 3:09 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
58

ENTRY ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS. For the reasons discussed herein, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction 22 is DENIED. Signed by Judge David Frank Hamilton on 7/21/2009. (LBK)

July 21, 2009

July 21, 2009

RECAP
109

ORDER granting Individual Pltfs' 85 Motion to Certify Class (See Order for details). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 4/27/2010. (SWM)

April 27, 2010

April 27, 2010

RECAP
197

ENTRY granting 182 MOTION to Exclude Testimony of Kathryn Burns. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 6/28/2011. (JD)

June 28, 2011

June 28, 2011

RECAP
262

Entry Discussing Motion filed by Leroy Jeffers: For the reasons explained above, therefore, Mr. Jeffers is not entitled to the relief sought in his motion to commute sentence, and that motion 249 is denied ***SEE ENTRY FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION***. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 10/31/2011. (DW)

Oct. 31, 2011

Oct. 31, 2011

RECAP
279

ENTRY FOLLOWING BENCH TRIAL - The Plaintiffs have prevailed as to their Eighth Amendment claim. Appropriate further proceedings will be conducted as to the relief to which the Plaintiffs are entitled and as to any ancillary matters. For now, no partial final judgment shall issue at this time as to the claim resolved in this Entry. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 12/31/2012.(TRG)

Dec. 31, 2012

Dec. 31, 2012

RECAP
442

ENTRY - The filings of Mr. Farmer [dkt 400 ] and Mr. Harwood [dkt 430 ] are DENIED. Copies Mailed. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 7/1/2015. (MGG)

July 1, 2015

July 1, 2015

RECAP
508

ENTRY CONCERNING SELECTED MATTERS - As a result of the hearing conducted on March 18, 2016 and the parties' filings associated with the resolution of this action through the submission and aproval of a Private Settlement Agreement, the partie s' Stipulation [dkt 496] is approved. The Court's findings, also issued this date, show that the proposed Private Settlement Agreement is "fair, reasonable, and adequate." Judicial policy favors voluntary settlement of class-ac tion cases. Cotton v. Hinton, 559 F.2d 1326, 1331 (5th Cir. 1977). That policy is fully served by approval of the proposed Private Settlement Agreement. Objections to the proposed Private Settlement Agreement are overruled. By approving the Privat e Settlement Agreement, moreover, the judgment will also provide for the dismissal of the action without prejudice after a period of three years. Judgment consistent with the foregoing, with the Private Settlement Agreement and with all other pertinent findings shall now issue. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 3/24/2016. (JLS)

March 24, 2016

March 24, 2016

RECAP
509

CLOSED JUDGMENT - IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Private Settlement Agreement will remain actively in effect for three (3) years from the date of this Order. At that time, absent written agreement as noted in paragraph 71 of the Private Settleme nt Agreement, this case will automatically be dismissed without prejudice. AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, inasmuch as all claims have been resolved against all parties, this Entry shall constitute the Final Judgment in this action and through its issuance the action shall be dismissed without prejudice, subject to all the provisions of the Private Settlement Agreement, which is approved and incorporated herein. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 3/24/2016.(JLS)

March 24, 2016

March 24, 2016

RECAP
607

Motion (Other)

1 Exhibit Consent

View on PACER

June 12, 2018

June 12, 2018

PACER
608

Order on Motion

June 15, 2018

June 15, 2018

PACER
609

Notice of Appearance

Aug. 3, 2018

Aug. 3, 2018

PACER
610

Notice of Change of Attorney Information

Aug. 8, 2018

Aug. 8, 2018

PACER
611

Notice of Change of Attorney Information

Aug. 10, 2018

Aug. 10, 2018

PACER
612

Order

Aug. 24, 2018

Aug. 24, 2018

PACER
613

Status Report

1 Exhibit Dr. Dvoskin CV

View on PACER

2 Exhibit Dr. Dvoskin report

View on PACER

Sept. 4, 2018

Sept. 4, 2018

PACER
614

MARGINAL ENTRY

Sept. 6, 2018

Sept. 6, 2018

PACER
615

Submission

Sept. 26, 2018

Sept. 26, 2018

PACER
616

Motion (Other)

Sept. 26, 2018

Sept. 26, 2018

PACER
617

Notice (Other)

Sept. 27, 2018

Sept. 27, 2018

PACER
618

Submission

Sept. 27, 2018

Sept. 27, 2018

PACER
619

MARGINAL ENTRY

Sept. 28, 2018

Sept. 28, 2018

PACER
620

MARGINAL ENTRY

Sept. 28, 2018

Sept. 28, 2018

PACER
621

MARGINAL ENTRY

Sept. 28, 2018

Sept. 28, 2018

PACER
622

Order on Motion

Oct. 2, 2018

Oct. 2, 2018

PACER
623

Order

Oct. 9, 2018

Oct. 9, 2018

PACER
624

Letter

Oct. 9, 2018

Oct. 9, 2018

PACER
625

Motion (Other)

1 Exhibit A - Letter from ACLU regarding assistance dated 7/10/18

View on PACER

2 Exhibit B - Letter from Indiana Disability Rights

View on PACER

3 Exhibit C - Letter from ACLU regarding assistance dated 9/24/18

View on PACER

Oct. 10, 2018

Oct. 10, 2018

PACER
626

Motion (Other)

Oct. 10, 2018

Oct. 10, 2018

PACER
627

Withdraw Attorney Appearance

1 Text of Proposed Order

View on PACER

Oct. 11, 2018

Oct. 11, 2018

PACER
628

Order on Motion to Withdraw Attorney Appearance

Oct. 12, 2018

Oct. 12, 2018

PACER
629

Order on Motion

Oct. 17, 2018

Oct. 17, 2018

PACER
630

Motion (Other)

Oct. 17, 2018

Oct. 17, 2018

PACER
631

Declaration

Oct. 17, 2018

Oct. 17, 2018

PACER
632

Submission

Oct. 17, 2018

Oct. 17, 2018

PACER
633

Joinder

Oct. 17, 2018

Oct. 17, 2018

PACER
634

Declaration

Oct. 17, 2018

Oct. 17, 2018

PACER
635

Order on Motion

Oct. 19, 2018

Oct. 19, 2018

PACER
636

Order on Motion for Joinder

Oct. 19, 2018

Oct. 19, 2018

PACER
637

Letter

1 Envelope

View on PACER

Oct. 19, 2018

Oct. 19, 2018

PACER
638

Entry

Oct. 22, 2018

Oct. 22, 2018

PACER
639

Submission

Nov. 21, 2018

Nov. 21, 2018

PACER
648

Letter

March 7, 2019

March 7, 2019

PACER
649

Stipulation

1 Text of Proposed Order

View on PACER

March 18, 2019

March 18, 2019

PACER
650

Entry

March 20, 2019

March 20, 2019

PACER
651

Status Report

March 21, 2019

March 21, 2019

PACER
652

MARGINAL ENTRY

March 25, 2019

March 25, 2019

PACER
653

Entry

June 26, 2019

June 26, 2019

PACER
654

SEALED Document (Case Participants - doc)

June 26, 2019

June 26, 2019

PACER
655

Motion (Other)

1 Envelope

View on PACER

July 11, 2019

July 11, 2019

PACER
656

Intervene

1 Envelope

View on PACER

July 17, 2019

July 17, 2019

PACER
657

Motion (Other)

1 Envelope

View on PACER

July 23, 2019

July 23, 2019

PACER
658

Motion (Other)

1 Envelope

View on PACER

July 23, 2019

July 23, 2019

PACER
659

Order on Motion to Intervene

Aug. 12, 2019

Aug. 12, 2019

PACER
660

Letter

Aug. 22, 2019

Aug. 22, 2019

PACER
661

MARGINAL ENTRY

Aug. 23, 2019

Aug. 23, 2019

PACER
662

Letter

1 Exhibit Letter from IDOC to Mr. Clark and artile from Therapytools.us

View on PACER

Aug. 29, 2019

Aug. 29, 2019

PACER
663

Letter

1 Envelope

View on PACER

Sept. 9, 2019

Sept. 9, 2019

PACER
664

Letter

Sept. 10, 2019

Sept. 10, 2019

PACER
665

Letter

Sept. 10, 2019

Sept. 10, 2019

PACER
666

Entry

Sept. 13, 2019

Sept. 13, 2019

PACER
667

Declaration

1 Exhibit A - ACLU letter dated 7/29/19

View on PACER

2 Exhibit B - ACLU letter dated 8/15/19

View on PACER

3 Exhibit C

View on PACER

4 Exhibit D - Article from NAMI regarding Aripiprazole

View on PACER

5 Exhibit E - Article from NAMI regarding Venlafaxine

View on PACER

6 Exhibit Letter from Gregory Taylor, Jr dated 8/28/19, Letter from U.S. Departmen

View on PACER

7 Envelope

View on PACER

Sept. 17, 2019

Sept. 17, 2019

PACER
668

Letter

Sept. 27, 2019

Sept. 27, 2019

PACER
669

MARGINAL ENTRY

Sept. 30, 2019

Sept. 30, 2019

PACER
670

Extension of Time (Other)

1 Text of Proposed Order

View on PACER

Oct. 15, 2019

Oct. 15, 2019

PACER
671

Notice of Appearance

Oct. 16, 2019

Oct. 16, 2019

PACER
672

Withdraw Attorney Appearance

1 Text of Proposed Order Order Granting Motion to Withdraw Appearance

View on PACER

Oct. 16, 2019

Oct. 16, 2019

PACER
673

Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File

Oct. 17, 2019

Oct. 17, 2019

PACER
674

Order on Motion to Withdraw Attorney Appearance

Oct. 17, 2019

Oct. 17, 2019

PACER
675

Motion (Other)

1 Exhibit Miscellaneous documents

View on PACER

Oct. 29, 2019

Oct. 29, 2019

PACER
685

Extension of Time (Other)

1 Text of Proposed Order

View on PACER

Jan. 10, 2020

Jan. 10, 2020

PACER
686

Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File

Jan. 13, 2020

Jan. 13, 2020

PACER
687

Extension of Time (Other)

1 Text of Proposed Order

View on PACER

Feb. 11, 2020

Feb. 11, 2020

PACER
688

Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File

Feb. 13, 2020

Feb. 13, 2020

PACER
689

Status Report

March 8, 2020

March 8, 2020

PACER
690

MARGINAL ENTRY

March 10, 2020

March 10, 2020

PACER
691

Motion (Other)

June 25, 2020

June 25, 2020

PACER
692

Notice of Filing

June 25, 2020

June 25, 2020

PACER
693

Order on Motion

July 2, 2020

July 2, 2020

PACER
695

Status Conference AND ~Util - Set Hearings

July 9, 2020

July 9, 2020

PACER
697

Stipulation

1 Text of Proposed Order

View on PACER

July 14, 2020

July 14, 2020

PACER
698

1 - Terminate Deadlines and Hearings AND Order

July 14, 2020

July 14, 2020

PACER
699

Motion (Other)

1 Envelope

View on PACER

July 21, 2020

July 21, 2020

PACER
700

MARGINAL ENTRY

Aug. 20, 2020

Aug. 20, 2020

PACER
701

Letter

1 Envelope

View on PACER

Sept. 24, 2020

Sept. 24, 2020

PACER
703

MARGINAL ENTRY

Oct. 26, 2020

Oct. 26, 2020

PACER
704

MARGINAL ENTRY

Oct. 30, 2020

Oct. 30, 2020

PACER
705

Extension of Time (Other)

1 Text of Proposed Order

View on PACER

Nov. 2, 2020

Nov. 2, 2020

PACER
706

Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File

Nov. 3, 2020

Nov. 3, 2020

PACER
707

Motion (Other)

1 Exhibit Request for Production of Documents

View on PACER

2 Envelope Interrogatories

View on PACER

3 Text of Proposed Order

View on PACER

Nov. 30, 2020

Nov. 30, 2020

PACER
708

Order on Motion

Dec. 4, 2020

Dec. 4, 2020

PACER
710

~Util - Set Hearings AND Status Conference

Dec. 28, 2020

Dec. 28, 2020

PACER
711

Notice of Substitution of Appearance

Dec. 29, 2020

Dec. 29, 2020

PACER
712

MARGINAL ENTRY

Dec. 30, 2020

Dec. 30, 2020

PACER
713

Notice of Appearance

Jan. 15, 2021

Jan. 15, 2021

PACER
715

~Util - Set Hearings AND Status Conference

Feb. 8, 2021

Feb. 8, 2021

PACER
716

MARGINAL ENTRY

Feb. 9, 2021

Feb. 9, 2021

PACER
717

MARGINAL ENTRY

March 2, 2021

March 2, 2021

PACER
719

Status Conference

April 19, 2021

April 19, 2021

PACER
720

Stipulation

May 7, 2021

May 7, 2021

PACER
721

MARGINAL ENTRY

May 10, 2021

May 10, 2021

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory: Indiana

Case Type(s):

Mental Health (Facility)

Special Collection(s):

Solitary confinement

Post-WalMart decisions on class certification

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

Key Dates

Filing Date: Oct. 1, 2008

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

A state agency charged by federal statute to advocate for and protect the interests of mentally ill adults in Indiana. Also the class of prisoners in Indiana with serious mental illness.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

State Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

NDRN/Protection & Advocacy Organizations

ACLU Affiliates (any)

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

Indiana, State

Defendant Type(s):

Corrections

Jurisdiction-wide

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.

Section 504 (Rehabilitation Act), 29 U.S.C. § 701

Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness (PAIMI) Act, 42 U.S.C. § 10801

Constitutional Clause(s):

Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Due Process

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Monetary Relief

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Non-settlement Outcome

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Attorneys fees

Declaratory Judgment

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Litigation

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Order Duration: 2016 - None

Content of Injunction:

Implement complaint/dispute resolution process

Monitoring

Recordkeeping

Reporting

Issues

General:

Classification / placement

Conditions of confinement

Confinement/isolation

Counseling

Placement in detention facilities

Placement in mental health facilities

Solitary confinement/Supermax (conditions or process)

Discrimination-basis:

Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)

Disability:

Mental impairment

Mental Disability:

Mental Illness, Unspecified

Medical/Mental Health:

Mental health care, general

Type of Facility:

Government-run