Case: Carey v. Christie

1:12-cv-02522 | U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey

Filed Date: April 27, 2012

Closed Date: 2013

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On April 27, 2012, residents at a state-run facility for women with developmental disabilities filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of the women in their facility in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey under Section 1983, the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ("Section 504") against the state of New Jersey. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, asked the court for various forms of injunctive relief…

On April 27, 2012, residents at a state-run facility for women with developmental disabilities filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of the women in their facility in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey under Section 1983, the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ("Section 504") against the state of New Jersey. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, asked the court for various forms of injunctive relief, claiming that the state was in violation of the ADA, Section 504, the Medicaid Act, and plaintiffs' substantive due process rights. Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that discharges or transfers were being forced upon plaintiffs without their consent, or the consent of their guardians or families; that plaintiffs were being discharged from the Vineland Developmental Center to other settings in violation of Section 504's mandate that the state implement its services and programs in "the most integrated setting appropriate" to meet plaintiffs' needs; that defendants have not met plaintiffs' needs under their multidisciplinary plans according to the Medicaid Act; and that plaintiffs' substantive due process rights were being violated by placing plaintiffs in other settings, subjecting them to an increased likelihood of injury and death from abuse, neglect, error, and lack of appropriate services.

On March 19, 2013, the Court (District Judge Renée Marie Bumb) granted the State's motion to dismiss, stating only that it was granting the motion for "the reasons stated at oral argument." No transcript of the proceeding is available. The Court allowed plaintiffs 45 days to file an amended complaint.

However, on May 2, 2013, plaintiffs asked the Court to grant a voluntary dismissal. The plaintiffs stated that they would "wait until the inevitable harm by the State becomes more evident and imminent," and that they would "seek to restart or to revive this litigation when appropriate." The Court granted plaintiffs' request and dismissed the action on May 6, 2013.

Summary Authors

Dan Whitman (9/19/2014)

People


Judge(s)

Bumb, Renee Marie (New Jersey)

Donio, Ann Marie (New Jersey)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Archer, Thomas A. (Pennsylvania)

York, Thomas B. (Pennsylvania)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Hughes, Gerard Andrew (New Jersey)

Other Attorney(s)

Active

Judge(s)

Bumb, Renee Marie (New Jersey)

Donio, Ann Marie (New Jersey)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Archer, Thomas A. (Pennsylvania)

York, Thomas B. (Pennsylvania)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Hughes, Gerard Andrew (New Jersey)

Other Attorney(s)

Cheng, Christopher N. (District of Columbia)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

Docket [PACER]

May 6, 2013 Docket
1

Complaint

April 27, 2012 Complaint
30

Amended Complaint

Jan. 11, 2013 Complaint
33-1

Defendants' Motion To Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)

Feb. 8, 2013 Pleading / Motion / Brief
39

Plaintiffs' Brief in Opposition to Motion To Dismiss

March 4, 2013 Pleading / Motion / Brief
42

Order Granting Motion To Dismiss

March 19, 2013 Order/Opinion
46

Order Granting Plaintiffs' Request for Voluntary Dismissal

May 6, 2013 Order/Opinion

Docket

Last updated May 12, 2022, 8 p.m.

Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.

State / Territory: New Jersey

Case Type(s):

Intellectual Disability (Facility)

Special Collection(s):

Olmstead Cases

Key Dates

Filing Date: April 27, 2012

Closing Date: 2013

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Putative class of New Jersey residents who reside or resided at the Vineland Developmental Center at anytime since April 25, 2010, or at any time during the litigation.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Denied

Defendants

State of New Jersey (Hamilton, Mercer), State

Defendant Type(s):

Housing Authority

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

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Defendant

Nature of Relief:

None

Source of Relief:

None yet

Form of Settlement:

Voluntary Dismissal

Issues

General:

Access to public accommodations - governmental

Deinstitutionalization/decarceration

Discharge & termination plans

Funding

Government Services

Habilitation (training/treatment)

Placement in mental health facilities

Affected Gender:

Female

Disability:

Mental impairment

Mental Disability:

Autism

Cerebral palsy

Developmental disability without intellectual disability

Intellectual/developmental disability, unspecified

Mental Illness, Unspecified

Medical/Mental Health:

Intellectual/Developmental Disability

Type of Facility:

Government-run

Benefit Source:

Medicaid