Case: Williams v. Quinn

1:05-cv-04673 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

Filed Date: Aug. 15, 2005

Closed Date: 2010

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On August 15, 2005, residents of an intermediate care facility (IMD) with mental illness filed a lawsuit under the Supreme Court's decision in Olmstead, the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act against various Illinois state officials in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Plaintiffs, represented by private counsel and legal services, asked the court for declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming that they were needlessl…

On August 15, 2005, residents of an intermediate care facility (IMD) with mental illness filed a lawsuit under the Supreme Court's decision in Olmstead, the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act against various Illinois state officials in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Plaintiffs, represented by private counsel and legal services, asked the court for declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming that they were needlessly segregated in a restricted institution that failed to provide them with the most integrated setting appropriate for their needs.

Plaintiffs had histories of mental illness and were residents of Monroe Pavilion Health and Treatment Center, an intermediate care facility (IMD). Plaintiffs argued that many IMD residents could be served in a more community-integrated setting, but that the state had insufficient policies and procedures in place to help residents transition out of an institutional setting. Further, Plaintiffs alleged that there were long waiting periods for admission to supporting housing programs, requiring many individuals to be inappropriately institutionalized or face homelessness.

On November 13, 2006, the Court (Judge William T. Hart) certified a class to consist of Illinois residents who: (1) have a mental illness; (2) are institutionalized in a privately-owned institution for mental diseases; and (3) may be able to live in an integrated community setting with appropriate supports and services. Williams v. Blagojevich, 2006 WL 3332844 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 13, 2006).

On January 2, 2008, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants' motion to quash and/or modify subpoenas. Williams v. Blagojevich, 2008 WL 68680 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 2, 2008).

The parties submitted a joint status report on February 18, 2010, stating that they had reached a settlement "in principle."

The Court preliminarily found that the modified proposed consent decree was within the appropriate range of fairness, adequacy, and reasonableness, on May 27, 2010.

On July 27, 2010, the Court issued an opinion and order. The Court held that class notice had contained misleading statements and that attorneys for objecting plaintiffs would not initiate contact with additional class members. Williams v. Quinn, 2010 WL 3021576 (N.D. Ill. Jul. 27, 2010).

The Court issued a consent decree on September 29, 2010. The purpose of the consent decree was to assure that Defendants provide Plaintiffs with the opportunity to receive services in the most integrated setting appropriate. Among other requirements, the decree called for Defendants to: implement measures to provide community-based services; provide independent, professionally appropriate evaluations for each class member in order to determine appropriate community-based services; develop services plans based on the results of those evaluations; ensure that class members receive complete and accurate information regarding their rights; and, create an implementation plan to accomplish the obligations in the decree. The decree also provided that Defendants would pay $1,990,000 to class counsel in fees and any additional costs and expenses.

On the same day, the Court issued an order granting final approval of the settlement agreement and retaining jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the consent decree. Williams v. Quinn, 2010 WL 3894350 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 29, 2010).

After the parties submitted their own recommendations regarding a monitor, the Court issued an agreed order appointing Dennis Jones to serve as monitor on November 1, 2010. The case was closed, and there has been no further litigation.

Summary Authors

Haley Waller (2/20/2011)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attrorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5427016/parties/williams-v-pritzker/


Judge(s)

Hart, William Thomas (Illinois)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Choslovsky, William (Illinois)

Marston, Angela D. (Illinois)

Neiman, Robert K. (Illinois)

Newman, Tonya G. (Illinois)

Russell, Joseph M. (Illinois)

Werner, Patricia A. (Illinois)

Wolf, Benjamin S. (Illinois)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Ioppolo, Thomas A. (Illinois)

Koenig, Ray J. III (Illinois)

Judge(s)

Hart, William Thomas (Illinois)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Choslovsky, William (Illinois)

Marston, Angela D. (Illinois)

Neiman, Robert K. (Illinois)

Newman, Tonya G. (Illinois)

Russell, Joseph M. (Illinois)

Werner, Patricia A. (Illinois)

Wolf, Benjamin S. (Illinois)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Ioppolo, Thomas A. (Illinois)

Koenig, Ray J. III (Illinois)

Madigan, Lisa (Illinois)

Stratton, Brent Douglas (Illinois)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

1:05-cv-04673

Docket

Jan. 28, 2011

Jan. 28, 2011

Docket
1

1:05-cv-04673

Complaint for Relief

Williams v. Blagojevich

Aug. 15, 2005

Aug. 15, 2005

Complaint
42

1:05-cv-04673

MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION OF CLASS

Williams v. Blagojevich

April 26, 2006

April 26, 2006

Pleading / Motion / Brief
40

1:05-cv-04673

First Amended Complaint for Relief

Williams v. Blagojevich

April 26, 2006

April 26, 2006

Complaint
48

1:05-cv-04673

DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Williams v. Blagojevich

June 7, 2006

June 7, 2006

Pleading / Motion / Brief
59

1:05-cv-04673

DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION OF CLASS

Williams v. Blagojevich

July 28, 2006

July 28, 2006

Pleading / Motion / Brief
61

1:05-cv-04673

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION OF CLASS

Williams v. Blagojevich

July 28, 2006

July 28, 2006

Pleading / Motion / Brief
67

1:05-cv-04673

PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY MEMORANDUM IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION OF CLASS

Williams v. Blagojevich

Aug. 18, 2006

Aug. 18, 2006

Pleading / Motion / Brief
70

1:05-cv-04673

Memorandum and Order

Williams v. Blagojevich

2006 WL 3332844

Nov. 13, 2006

Nov. 13, 2006

Order/Opinion
86

1:05-cv-04673

Order

Williams v. Blagojevich

April 5, 2007

April 5, 2007

Order/Opinion

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5427016/williams-v-pritzker/

Last updated Aug. 7, 2022, 3:06 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
70

MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by Judge William T. Hart on 11/13/2006.(td, )

Nov. 13, 2006

Nov. 13, 2006

RECAP
148

OPINION and Order Signed by Judge William T. Hart on 1/2/2008. (td, )

Jan. 2, 2008

Jan. 2, 2008

RECAP
285

OPINION and Order Signed by the Honorable William T. Hart on 7/27/2010. (gmr, )

July 27, 2010

July 27, 2010

RECAP
325

OPINION and Order Signed by the Honorable William T. Hart on 9/29/2010. (gmr, )

Sept. 29, 2010

Sept. 29, 2010

RECAP
339

MOTION by Plaintiffs Edward Brandon, Gilbert Parham, Ethel Williams, Jan Wrightsell for judgment (Agreed Motion) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Wolf, Benjamin)

1 Text of Proposed Order

View on PACER

Feb. 15, 2011

Feb. 15, 2011

RECAP
395

Opinion and Order: The Monitor's reports are approved. The Monitor is requested to provide the most recent Critical Incident Report, his comments thereon and any available comparative date with all future reports to the court. Mario Durham's motion for a hearing 375 is denied. A status hearing will be held on July 10, 2014 at 2:00 p.m. Signed by the Honorable William T. Hart on 1/10/2014:Mailed notice(clw, )

Jan. 10, 2014

Jan. 10, 2014

RECAP
480

Order

May 23, 2018

May 23, 2018

PACER
485

Withdraw as Attorney

Sept. 25, 2018

Sept. 25, 2018

PACER
487

Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney

Sept. 28, 2018

Sept. 28, 2018

PACER
488

Substitute Attorney

Oct. 9, 2018

Oct. 9, 2018

PACER
491

Order on Motion to Substitute Attorney

Oct. 10, 2018

Oct. 10, 2018

PACER
504

MOTION by Defendant Bruce Rauner for judgment order re attorney fees and costs (Stratton, Brent)

March 29, 2019

March 29, 2019

RECAP
506

Order on Motion for Judgment

April 3, 2019

April 3, 2019

PACER
507

Order

April 3, 2019

April 3, 2019

PACER
511

Withdraw as Attorney

June 3, 2019

June 3, 2019

PACER
514

Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney

June 4, 2019

June 4, 2019

PACER
579

Withdraw as Attorney

Dec. 3, 2021

Dec. 3, 2021

PACER
581

Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney

Dec. 6, 2021

Dec. 6, 2021

PACER
593

Miscellaneous Relief

May 27, 2022

May 27, 2022

PACER
594

Order AND Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief

May 31, 2022

May 31, 2022

PACER
602

Order

July 20, 2022

July 20, 2022

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory: Illinois

Case Type(s):

Public Benefits/Government Services

Special Collection(s):

Olmstead Cases

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

Key Dates

Filing Date: Aug. 15, 2005

Closing Date: 2010

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Individuals with mental illness who were residents of an intermediate care nursing home

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

NDRN/Protection & Advocacy Organizations

Legal Services/Legal Aid

Bazelon Center

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

Governor of the State of Illinois, State

Secretary of the Illinois Department of Human Services, State

Director of the Division of Mental Health of Illinois Department of Human Services, State

Director of the Illinois Department of Public Health, State

Director of the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services, State

Case Details

Causes of Action:

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

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

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Amount Defendant Pays: 1900000

Issues

Benefit Source:

Medicaid