Filed Date: Aug. 4, 2014
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
On August 4, 2014, advocates for A.B. and other legally incompetent criminal defendants in county jails in Washington State filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The plaintiffs sued the Washington Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201. They sought both injunctive and declaratory relief.
The case was assigned to U.S. District Judge Marsha J. Pechman.
The plaintiffs alleged that the rights of A.B. and similarly situated persons were violated by the delay between being deemed legally incompetent and being transferred to a mental health facility. In response to a prior order for immediate transfer of A.B. to a mental health facility, the State explained that the state-run facility that they ordinarily utilized for legally incompetent plaintiffs such as A.B. did not have enough physical bed space to promptly treat every patient. The State argued it was under no deadline to transport legally incompetent plaintiffs for treatment. The plaintiffs, on the other hand, argued that the State's failure to adhere to a seven-day deadline imposed by Washington law, RCWA 10.77.220, constituted cruel and unusual punishment and violated both the Fourteenth Amendment and the Americans with Disabilities Act. On September 12, 2014, the plaintiffs amended their complaint, added three additional named plaintiffs, and sought class certification for themselves and all others similarly situated in the present and future. The court granted the class certification on October 31, 2014.
On the day the case was filed, plaintiffs made an emergency motion for preliminary injunction and Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), requesting that defendants be enjoined to expedite mental health evaluations and provide adequate mental health treatment for class members. A few days later, on August 7, 2014, the court denied the requested relief, finding that Younger v. Harris principles indicated that the court should abstain from hearing the civil rights claim, and that unresolved issues of standing mitigated against granting relief.
Plaintiffs moved again for a preliminary injunction and TRO on October 3, 2014, this time arguing that their requested relief was not barred under the Younger doctrine, because plaintiffs’ claim did not interfere with state court proceedings. On October 8, after oral argument, Judge Pechman denied the motion for TRO and granted an accelerated trial date.
On October 29, 2014, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their ADA claims. On November 6, 2014, the plaintiffs moved for summary judgment and a declaration that the defendants' conduct had violated the due process rights of the named plaintiffs and class members. On December 22, 2014, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, finding that defendants’ failure to provide timely services to legally incompetent detainees violated class members’ due process rights. Accordingly, Judge Pechman granted plaintiffs' motion and declared that Defendants violated class members’ constitutional rights. However, the court determined that the question of what would be constitutionally required of defendants would continue to trial. 2014 WL 7338747.
There was a seven-day bench trial in March 2015. The court heard facts to determine what amount of time legally incompetent detainees could be made to wait for transfer to a mental health facility without experiencing a violation of their due process rights.
On April 2, 2015, the court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law and ordered the defendants to stop violating the class members' constitutional rights by providing timely competency evaluation and restoration services. The court also entered a permanent injunction requiring the provision of competency services within seven days. The court appointed a monitor to ensure that progress toward the timely provision of services was being made. 101 F. Supp. 3d 1010. The monitor reports can be viewed at https://www.dshs.wa.gov/bha/court-monitor-reports.
Subsequently, the defendants moved for reconsideration, asking the court to modify the permanent injunction in four ways. On May 6, 2015, the court modified the permanent injunction to allow for a good cause exception to the seven-day timeframe for class members ordered to receive competency services at state hospitals where a class member’s health prevented them from being medically cleared to be transported, despite the defendants’ good faith efforts. The court denied the defendants’ other requests for modification. Defendants appealed this decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
On June 22, 2015, the court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and costs. The court awarded $1,303,169 in fees and costs. The defendants also appealed this decision.
At the Ninth Circuit, defendants appealed the December 2014 grant of summary judgment to the plaintiffs, the court's judgment, the permanent injunction, and the denial of the defendants' motion to modify the injunction. While the appeal was pending, the defendants again asked the district court to modify the permanent injunction in December 2015. On February 8, 2016, the district court modified the permanent injunction and extended the defendants’ compliance deadline to May 27, 2016, along with other minor changes.
At two different points, the plaintiffs moved for TROs due to safety issues at two different facilities: Yakima Competency Restoration Center and Maple Lane Competency Restoration Program.
First, on March 17, 2016, the plaintiffs moved for an order temporarily restraining the defendant from assigning class members to receive restoration treatment at the Yakima Competency Restoration Center. They claimed that the partially renovated jail was unsafe and violated the court’s orders, as the class members are to be provided services in a state psychiatric hospital or a facility that is therapeutically comparable to the hospital. After considering briefings, oral arguments, and findings from a court visit to the facility, on April 12, 2016, the court granted in part plaintiffs’ motion. The court found that there were unacceptable risks of irreparable harm to class members and staff posed by the facility’s staircase and its seclusion and restraint room. The court explained that these spaces presented an opportunity for suicide, especially given that the facility did not have a clear policy on the use of seclusion and restraint. However, the court agreed with the defendants that immediately closing the Yakima program would not be in the best interest of the class members or the public. Thus, the court issued a modified temporary restraining order prohibiting use of the facility’s second floor and seclusion and restraint room unless and until the risks presented are remediated. Per the plaintiffs’ subsequent motions, the court extended the temporary restraining order twice (April 24 and May 10, 2016), leaving it in effect until May 20, 2016. On May 20, 2016, the court lifted the portion of the order restricting use of the seclusion and restraint room. On June 29, 2016, the parties entered a stipulated agreement regarding use of the facility, specifying that the facility had been modified consistently with the court order. On June 30, 2016, the court issued an order stating that the court agrees that there is no further restriction on the use of the stairwell, and that the stairwell and second floor of the facility may be used freely.
Second, on May 19, 2016, the plaintiffs moved for a temporary restraining order enjoining DSHS and its Maple Lane contractors from exposing plaintiffs to an unsafe stairwell at the Maple Lane facility. On June 6, 2016, the court granted the motion with some modification. The court ordered that no members may access the second floor until the staircase risks have been remediated, except for in one wing of the facility in which remediation efforts were completed. On June 7, 2016, the defendants submitted proof of compliance at the facility; they explained that remediation efforts for the rest of the staircases had been completed. On June 10, 2016, the court lifted the temporary restraining order.
Meanwhile, the issue of timeframe for conducting evaluations was being considered on appeal. On May 6, 2016, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion regarding the timeframe for conducting competency evaluations. 822 F.3d 1037. The court agreed with the district court that DSHS must conduct the evaluations “within a reasonable time following a court’s order,” but found that the seven-day mandate “imposes a temporal obligation beyond what the Constitution requires.” The court therefore vacated the injunction with respect to the seven-day requirement and remanded to the district court to amend the injunction.
The plaintiffs moved the court several times to find the defendants in civil contempt of its prior court orders. On May 10, 2016, the plaintiffs withdrew a previous civil contempt motion (dated May 5) and made a new motion. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants failed to meet important compliance deadlines and were not on track to meet the court’s amended compliance deadline of May 27, 2016. Despite court orders, the plaintiffs claimed that the defendants failed to provide timely competency services. On May 26, 2016, the plaintiffs moved the court to find the defendants in contempt for failing to comply with the court’s order to admit class members to state hospitals for competency evaluations within seven days of a court order.
On June 2 the plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider the scope of the injunction regarding in-jail evaluations. The plaintiffs claimed that a 10-day requirement for completing jail-based competency requirements serves all legitimate state interests regarding timely completion. On June 30, 2016, the defendants filed a motion to reconsider the scope of the injunction regarding timing of services and inpatient evaluations.
On July 7, 2016, the court issued an order of civil contempt. The court imposed monetary sanctions on the defendants, to be continued until the defendants complied by providing timely services. The court issued many money judgments regarding the civil contempt payments throughout the litigation. On December 20, 2016, the court granted the parties’ joint motion to amend the monetary fines imposed as contempt sanctions, ordering a single judgment for $7,486,500 in sanctions to date. After this date, the court made more money judgments.
On August 15, 2016, the court issued an order modifying the permanent injunction as to in-jail competency evaluations. The court considered this matter on remand from the Ninth Circuit. The court modified the injunction to require in-jail competency evaluations to be completed within fourteen days of the signing of a court order.
On August 17, 2016, the court issued an order denying defendants’ motion to reconsider the order of civil contempt in all respects except with regard to a transcription error. On August 19, 2016, the court issued an order denying the defendants’ motion to reconsider the injunction regarding timing of services and inpatient evaluations.
On September 14, 2016, the defendants appealed the judgment and order modifying the permanent injunction as to in jail competency evaluations, and the order denying their motion to reconsider the injunction regarding timing of services and inpatient evaluations.
On October 13, 2016, the court granted plaintiffs’ second motion for attorney’s fees and costs, awarding plaintiffs $1,267,769.10 in attorneys fees, and $35,400.38 in litigation costs (subject to reductions previously detailed in the original order on attorneys’ fees). On November 14, 2016, the defendants appealed this order.
On February 1, 2017, at the direction of the court, the defendants submitted a proposed compliance plan. The plan details how DSHS would admit class members to receive competency evaluations, treatment services, and in-custody evaluation services. The plan includes proposals to increase competency evaluation capacity, expand bed capacity for inpatient competency services, and diversion and triage, and it also addresses various recommendations that had been made by the plaintiffs.
On February 21, 2017, the court issued an order expanding the court monitor’s authority and responsibilities.
Meanwhile, the parties had been engaging in mediation regarding the issues on appeal to the Ninth Circuit. On February 15, 2017, the parties informed the Ninth Circuit that they resolved the matter contingent on district court approval of their settlement. On February 23, 2017, the appeal was remanded to the district court for consideration of the settlement. On March 17, 2017, the parties made a joint motion to adopt the mediated settlement agreement. The parties’ agreement includes the following principles: the parties will jointly generate outreach documents to inform courts of their obligations regarding timing of services; DSHS shall complete in-jail competency evaluations within either 14 days from receipt of order (or 21 days from signature or order); DSHS shall admit class members for inpatient competency evaluation or restoration within 7 days from receipt of order (or 14 days from signature of order); orders will be deemed received as of the time they are electronically transmitted; the defendants will continue to track the data.
On April 26, 2017, the court partially adopted the parties' mediated settlement agreement. Specifically, the court adopted the provisions of the proposed settlement agreement concerning outreach, the deadline for in-jail competency evaluations, the deadline for in-patient evaluation and restoration services, receipt of order, the trigger point for notice to plaintiffs' counsel, and the defendants' data collection. Additionally, the court modified the prior orders of the court in order to conform with this new agreement.
On August 30, 2017, the court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs' third motion for attorney’s fees and costs, awarding plaintiffs $1,108,351.50 in attorneys’ fees and $8,270.45 in litigation costs. The defendants appealed this order on September 27, 2017. In December 2017, the defendants voluntarily dismissed their appeals of the court's attorney’s fees and costs awards.
Throughout the case, the court continued to order attorneys’ fees and continued to issue monthly monetary contempt judgments against the defendants.
2018 Settlement Agreement
On October 19, 2017, the court issued an order on the plaintiffs' second motion for civil contempt. The court found that the defendants were in contempt of court, as they had failed to: comply with the court’s orders requiring the timely completion of in-jail competency evaluations, take all reasonable steps to reduce wait times for in-jail competency evaluations, hire sufficient staff to timely respond to the demand for in-jail competency services, diversify the types of medical professionals serving class members, and secure sufficient temporary contracted staff to respond to unanticipated increases in evaluation orders. The court noted that it would continue to impose monetary sanctions, as well as a reporting requirement in order to facilitate payment of the contempt fines.
On January 12, 2018, the parties submitted an agreement resolving the pending motions and setting up a settlement negotiation process. Throughout 2017 and 2018, the court continued to issue many money judgments regarding the civil contempt payments.
After filing a motion for preliminary approval of a settlement agreement on August 16, 2018, the parties filed an amended settlement agreement on October 25, 2018. The agreement covered the substantive areas of competency evaluation; competency restoration; crisis triage and diversion supports; education and training; and workforce development. The agreement required the State to support and work to achieve legislative changes to reduce the number of people ordered into competency evaluation and restoration, and to use community-based restoration services. The agreement contained three implementation phases, focusing on various regions. Additionally, the defendants agreed to use a sustainable oversight structure to inform and provide supervision for high-level policymaking, planning, and decision-making on targeted issues. The parties also asked the court to suspend the entry of judgments for continuing contempt fines beginning December 1, 2018 (except those fines accumulated under the court's order regarding jail-based evaluations). Finally, the agreement's terms would remain in effect until the defendants achieve substantial compliance with its various requirements.
On November 1, 2018 the court issued its order for preliminary approval of the settlement agreement. Following a fairness hearing on December 11, 2018 the court issued its final approval of the settlement agreement. The court directed the parties to submit quarterly reports on the implementation beginning in April 2019.
Beginning in March 2019, parties began working on an implementation plan for the settlement agreement. An April 2019 implementation report noted joint efforts towards the passage of several legislative enactments that would expand diversion services with the intent to reduce the demand for competency evaluations and restoration services. The report also noted that the State had created several work groups and committees to implement the agreement. Finally, the report noted that implementation efforts will expand substantially during the second half of 2019. On June 27, 2019, parties submitted a final implementation plan, which Judge Pechman approved on October 1, 2019.
On May 8, 2020, the court held a hearing to receive an update on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on defendants’ compliance with the settlement agreement.
On November 10, 2021, Judge Pechman granted parties’ joint motion for relief from defendants’ Spokane facility reporting obligations, finding that defendants had completed their 16-Bed Crisis Stabilization requirements.
Diversion Funding
On February 24, 2017, parties proposed a stipulated motion to distribute contempt funds for diversion programming to help keep class members out of jail. Judge Pechman granted the motion on March 21, 2017.
The diversion grant program is separate and apart from the programs outlined in the 2018 settlement agreement. The grant programs were overseen by the court and funded by contempt funds.
2023 Breach of Settlement Agreement and Further Contempt
In December 2022, plaintiffs filed a motion for contempt and material breach of the 2018 contempt settlement, claiming that the State was dedicating inpatient competency/restoration beds to long term civil commitment patients instead of class members.
After a hearing in June 2023, on July 7, 2023, Judge Pechman granted the motions in part, finding the defendants had breached a portion of the 2018 settlement agreement. Pursuant to the finding of contempt, the court ordered defendants to transfer long term civil commitment patients out of competency/restoration beds to make room for class members, and ordered an additional $100 million in fines. Parties were also ordered to confer to amend the implementation order upon court approval. Defendants appealed the contempt ruling on August 7, 2023. In August 2023, as well as April 2024, the court modified the order. The appeal of the July 7, 2023 contempt ruling was later dismissed without prejudice in May 23, 2024, by a stipulation of the parties to reinstate the appeal in the event the District Court did not approve the settlement agreement.
On June 14, 2024, parties filed a joint stipulated motion for approval of a settlement agreement. About a year later, on June 9, 2025, the court denied the motion after a hearing on June 7.
On Oct. 31, 2025, the case was reassigned to U.S. District Judge John H. Chun.
As of April 2026, this case is ongoing, with settlement compliance continuing to be monitored. The court continues to order attorneys’ fees and continues to issue monthly monetary contempt judgments against the defendants.
Summary Authors
Anna Dimon (2/19/2015)
Jessica Kincaid (2/26/2016)
Julie Singer (4/1/2017)
Eva Richardson (5/27/2019)
Madison Krumins (4/21/2026)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4411438/parties/trueblood-v-washington-state-department-of-health-and-human-services/
A.B., A.B. (Washington)
Adams, Samuel James (Washington)
Baghdadi, Khaldoun A. (Washington)
Baker, La Rond (Washington)
Antanaitis, Robert Andrew (Washington)
Adams, Samuel James (Washington)
Baghdadi, Khaldoun A. (Washington)
Carlson, David R. (Washington)
Carney, Christopher Robert (Washington)
Carreras, Cecilia (Washington)
Carter, Vinson F. (Washington)
Chester, Martin S (Washington)
Connolly, Anna Fleder (Washington)
Conti-Cook, Cynthia Helen (Washington)
Crouse, Candace C (Washington)
Daugaard, Lisa M. (Connecticut)
Dimmitt, David A. (Washington)
Dolan, Christopher H (Washington)
Driscoll, John J. (Washington)
Erickson, Jessica Marie (Washington)
Fishelman, Bruce C (Washington)
Fisher, Michael A. (Washington)
Friedman, Lawrence B. (Washington)
Gillespie, Sean P (Washington)
Goldenberg, Stuart L. (Washington)
Goldenberg, Marlene J. (Washington)
Green, F Harrison (Washington)
Greenberg, John B. (Washington)
Guy, Anna Catherine (Washington)
Houssiere, Charles Rene (Washington)
Hubbard, Katherine (Washington)
Karakatsanis, Alec George (Washington)
Karalis, Lauren Elizabeth (Washington)
Karam, Christina Marie (Washington)
Khandelwal, Anita (Washington)
Korobkin, Daniel S. (Washington)
Lawner, Robert Alexander (Washington)
Leonard, Elizabeth A. (Washington)
Levick, Marsha L. (Washington)
Luepke, Henry Luepke (Washington)
Marca, Lindsay La (Washington)
McCown, Alexandra Silas (Washington)
Melley, Rebecca S. (Washington)
Mosolf, Kimberly Ann (Washington)
Mujumdar, Anil Ashok (Washington)
Nelson, Joshua R. (Washington)
Nematzadeh, Justin Solomon (Washington)
Ostrom, Lucia Romano (Washington)
Pence, Braden Cyrus (Washington)
Polaski, Alexa Helen (Washington)
Quinn, Christopher J. (Washington)
Rosado, Lourdes M. (Washington)
Rosenfeld, David Avi (Washington)
Rudman, Samuel Howard (Washington)
Schwartz, Andrew Louis (Washington)
Seevers, Rachael E (Washington)
Siebrecht, Stacie B (Washington)
Sr, William Donald (Washington)
Steinberg, Michael J. (Washington)
Stephenson, Zachary L (Washington)
Stoll, Christopher F (Washington)
Stroud, Hannah Clare (Washington)
Swiers, Colleen M. (Washington)
Thorner, Robin C. (Washington)
Witzel, Richard C. (Washington)
Wu, Stephanie Siyi (Washington)
Yira, Markus Clarence (Washington)
Zarzaur, Gregory Martin (Washington)
Antanaitis, Robert Andrew (Washington)
Czar, Anthony Martin (Washington)
Hackett, David JW (Washington)
Johnson, Dana Martin (Washington)
Kilgore, Jerry Walker (Washington)
Leaders, Amber L. (Washington)
McCarthy, Angela D. (Washington)
McIlhenny, John K (Washington)
Stephens, William T (Washington)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4411438/trueblood-v-washington-state-department-of-health-and-human-services/
Last updated April 21, 2026, 5:58 p.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Healthcare Access and Reproductive Issues
Special Collection(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: Aug. 4, 2014
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Individuals with mental health disabilities in city and county jails in Washington.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Granted
Defendants
State
The Washington State Department of Social and Human Services
The Washington State Department of Social and Human Services
The Washington State Department of Social and Human Services
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Constitutional Clause(s):
Other Dockets:
Western District of Washington 2:14-cv-01178
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 15-35462
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 15-35601
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 16-35744
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 17-35335
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 17-35787
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 16-35945
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 35534
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 23-02761
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Content of Injunction:
Goals (e.g., for hiring, admissions)
Amount Defendant Pays: Monthly monetary contempt judgments
Issues
General/Misc.:
Reassessment and care planning
Disability and Disability Rights:
Discrimination Basis:
Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)
Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:
Placement in detention facilities
Solitary confinement/Supermax (conditions or process)
Medical/Mental Health Care:
Policing:
Improper treatment of mentally ill suspects
Case Summary of A.B. v. Washington Department of Social and Health Services, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/14134/ (last updated 4/21/2026).