Case: U.S. v. Arkansas

4:10-cv-00327 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas

Filed Date: May 6, 2010

Closed Date: 2011

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On May 6, 2010, the United States Department of Justice ("DOJ") filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas under Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA") against the State of Arkansas. The Department of Justice asked the court to issue an injunction, claiming that the State discriminates against people with developmental disabilities by not providing programs that are the most appropriate for their needs. Specifically, the DOJ claim…

On May 6, 2010, the United States Department of Justice ("DOJ") filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas under Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA") against the State of Arkansas. The Department of Justice asked the court to issue an injunction, claiming that the State discriminates against people with developmental disabilities by not providing programs that are the most appropriate for their needs. Specifically, the DOJ claimed that in administering developmental disability services, the State of Arkansas unnecessarily segregates and isolates persons with disabilities from the community.

Previously, the DOJ had filed suit against the State of Arkansas (ID-AR-002) and the Conway Human Development Center ("CHDC") alleging that the manner in which the State provides services to persons with disabilities residing in the CHDC violated the Fourteenth Amendment, the ADA, and the Disabilities Education Act. The DOJ moved to dismiss Count II of the CHDC complaint in order to pursue the statewide action.

The State moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the DOJ did not fulfill the procedural requirements to bring suit under Title II of the ADA, as stated in the Code of Federal Regulations. The regulations set forth an administrative process, that prior to filing a lawsuit, that requires a complaint by an individual of discrimination to an agency with jurisdiction over the subject matter, an attempt at an informal resolution, issuance of a formal letter of compliance or noncompliance, and a referral by the federal agency to the Attorney General for enforcement. On January 24, 2011, the District Court (Judge J. Leon Holmes) dismissed the case without prejudice because the court found that the DOJ had not followed the administrative process set forth in the regulations.

Summary Authors

Ashley Grolig (9/21/2014)

Related Cases

USA v. Arkansas, Eastern District of Arkansas (2009)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5391377/parties/united-states-v-arkansas-state-of/


Judge(s)

Holmes, James Leon (Arkansas)

Wright, Susan Webber (Arkansas)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Bagenstos, Samuel R. (District of Columbia)

Coon, Laura (District of Columbia)

Cuncannan, Jacqueline (District of Columbia)

Donnelly, Matthew J. (District of Columbia)

Herman, Vincent P. (District of Columbia)

Perez, Thomas E. (District of Columbia)

Preston, Judith (Judy) C. (District of Columbia)

Tayloe, Benjamin O. (District of Columbia)

Judge(s)

Holmes, James Leon (Arkansas)

Wright, Susan Webber (Arkansas)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Bagenstos, Samuel R. (District of Columbia)

Coon, Laura (District of Columbia)

Cuncannan, Jacqueline (District of Columbia)

Donnelly, Matthew J. (District of Columbia)

Herman, Vincent P. (District of Columbia)

Perez, Thomas E. (District of Columbia)

Preston, Judith (Judy) C. (District of Columbia)

Tayloe, Benjamin O. (District of Columbia)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Robinson, Sherri L. (Arkansas)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

Docket [PACER]

USA v. Arkansas, State of

Jan. 24, 2011 Docket
1

Complaint

United States of America v. State of Arkansas

May 6, 2010 Complaint
2

Order [requiring DOJ to file pleading why case should not be assigned to Judge Holmes]

USA v. State of Arkansas

May 13, 2010 Order/Opinion
14

Order [deferring to Judge Holmes on whether case should be reassigned to his docket]

USA v. State of Arkansas

May 27, 2010 Order/Opinion
30

Opinion and Order [dismissing the complaint without prejudice]

United States of America v. State of Arkansas

2011 WL 251107

Jan. 24, 2011 Order/Opinion

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5391377/united-states-v-arkansas-state-of/

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

ECF Number Description Date Link
2

ORDER directing that on or before May 24, 2010, the United States file a pleading addressing why the Statewide action should not be assigned to Judge Holmes. Signed by Judge Susan Webber Wright on 5/13/10. (bkp)

May 13, 2010 RECAP
14

ORDER deferring to Chief Judge Holmes for a determination of whether the Statewide ADA action should be reassigned to his docket as a related case to the CHDC action or otherwise; and directing the Clerk to file this Order in the CHDC action, United States of America v. State of Arkansas, et al., No. 4:09-cv-0033 JLH. Signed by Judge Susan Webber Wright on 5/27/10. (bkp)

May 27, 2010 RECAP
30

OPINION AND ORDER dismissing pltf's complaint without prejudice; judgment will be entered accordingly. Signed by Chief Judge J. Leon Holmes on 1/24/11. (vjt)

Jan. 24, 2011 RECAP
31

JUDGMENT pursuant to 30 Opinion and Order entered this date, judgment is hereby entered dismissing this action without prejudice. Signed by Chief Judge J. Leon Holmes on 1/24/11. (vjt)

Jan. 24, 2011 RECAP

State / Territory: Arkansas

Case Type(s):

Intellectual Disability (Facility)

Special Collection(s):

Olmstead Cases

Key Dates

Filing Date: May 6, 2010

Closing Date: 2011

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

United States of America - Department of Justice

Plaintiff Type(s):

U.S. Dept of Justice plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

U.S. Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

State of Arkansas, State

Defendant Type(s):

Jurisdiction-wide

Case Details

Causes of Action:

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

Constitutional Clause(s):

Equal Protection

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: None Yet / None

Nature of Relief:

Attorneys fees

Source of Relief:

None yet

Content of Injunction:

Develop anti-discrimination policy

Discrimination Prohibition

Issues

General:

Access to public accommodations - governmental

Classification / placement

Deinstitutionalization/decarceration

Government Services

Reassessment and care planning

Discrimination-basis:

Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)

Disability:

Mental impairment

Mental Disability:

Intellectual/developmental disability, unspecified

Medical/Mental Health:

Intellectual/Developmental Disability

Type of Facility:

Government-run