Case: Michigan Protection & Advocacy Service, Inc. v. Caruso

5:05-cv-00128 | U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan

Filed Date: Sept. 14, 2005

Closed Date: 2011

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On September 14, 2005, the Michigan Protection and Advocacy Service (MPAS) filed this complaint on behalf of youths aged 22 and younger with mental illnesses incarcerated in the Michigan Youth Correctional Facility (MYCF). The MYCF, a maximum security prison for adolescent males convicted as adults, was privately operated by GEO Group, Inc. In October of 2005, approximately two weeks after the complaint was filed, the MYCF facility was closed and all the incarcerated youths were moved to other …

On September 14, 2005, the Michigan Protection and Advocacy Service (MPAS) filed this complaint on behalf of youths aged 22 and younger with mental illnesses incarcerated in the Michigan Youth Correctional Facility (MYCF). The MYCF, a maximum security prison for adolescent males convicted as adults, was privately operated by GEO Group, Inc. In October of 2005, approximately two weeks after the complaint was filed, the MYCF facility was closed and all the incarcerated youths were moved to other Michigan Department of Correction (MDOC) facilities. MPAS, however, claimed all the illegal conditions of confinement described below continued to exist.

The complaint listed three areas of concern.

First, because the MYC facility had the highest security level, there were fewer educational and rehabilitation programs available. After MYCF closed, MPAS claimed that the youths with mental illnesses still had limited access to appropriate educational programs, in violation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 20 U.S.C. § 1401.

Second, MPAS also claimed that the MDOC screening and treatment procedures for youths with mental illnesses were inadequate. MPAS argued that youths with diagnosed mental illnesses were instead classified as malingering and manipulative and were more likely to be placed in disciplinary and administrative segregation and to spend longer amounts of time there than the other youths in violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 41 U.S.C. § 12132 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (504), 29 U.S.C. § 794.

Finally, MPAS claimed that the social and sensory deprivation conditions of isolation exacerbated existing mental illnesses, and sometimes caused the development of mental illnesses in youths who were previously healthy. They claimed that this violated the youths' Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment. Lastly MPAS contends that MDOC violated the youths' Fourteenth Amendment due process rights by imposing punishments without determining if they should be held accountable for their actions.

MPAS sought declaratory judgment and permanent injunction to resolve the above issues.

Starting in September of 2006, the the parties began developing an action plan based on a series of settlement talks mediated by Chief Judge Paul L. Maloney and in July of 2008 submitted a implementation plan to the Court which was not made public.

As understood from the stipulation for stay document, one aspect of the plan was the implementation of monitors in 2007 to oversee the defendant’s resolution of the issues raised in the plaintiff’s complaint. These included better screening procedures to identify prisoners with mental illnesses, not placing prisoners in administrative segregation or placing them there for shorter periods, and training the staff on mental illnesses.

In October, 2008, the Court granted the defendant's partial motion for summary judgment related to a question of providing special education. Federal law required MDOC to provide special education services to prisoners until they reached the age of 22. The Court granted the partial motion for summary judgment to clarify that the Michigan Mandatory Special Education Act, which would have extended access to special education until the age of 27, did not apply to prisoners because MDOC was not a "public agency" as understood by the Act.

The matter was stayed until August 2009, then again until December 2010, and finally until June 2011 to allow time to implement the changes.

In June, 2011, both parties agreed that the complaint should be dismissed as the issues had been resolved.

Summary Authors

Amanda Kenner (2/21/2017)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4694503/parties/michigan-protection-advocacy-service-inc-v-caruso/


Judge(s)

Carmody, Ellen S. (Michigan)

Enslen, Richard Alan (Michigan)

Maloney, Paul Lewis (Michigan)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Cecil, Thomas G. (Michigan)

Cody, Mark A. (Michigan)

Fleischner, Robert D. (Massachusetts)

Hickox, Stacy Ann (Michigan)

Moss, Kary L. (Michigan)

Singer, Abraham (Michigan)

Steinberg, Michael J. (Michigan)

Judge(s)

Carmody, Ellen S. (Michigan)

Enslen, Richard Alan (Michigan)

Maloney, Paul Lewis (Michigan)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Cecil, Thomas G. (Michigan)

Cody, Mark A. (Michigan)

Fleischner, Robert D. (Massachusetts)

Hickox, Stacy Ann (Michigan)

Moss, Kary L. (Michigan)

Singer, Abraham (Michigan)

Steinberg, Michael J. (Michigan)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Friedman, Leo H. (Michigan)

Govorchin, A. Peter (Michigan)

Morris, William R. (Michigan)

Olivieri, Linda M. (Michigan)

Expert/Monitor/Master

Dvoskin, Joel A. (Arizona)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

Docket [PACER]

April 3, 2014 Docket
1

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Sept. 14, 2005 Complaint
45

Order [Granting and Denying in Part Motion for Partial Summary Judgment]

April 10, 2006 Order/Opinion
117

Settlement Conference Report of Joel Dvoskin, Ph.D in Accordance with Order of September 22, 1996

Nov. 3, 2006 Monitor/Expert/Receiver Report
141

Third Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Nov. 20, 2006 Complaint
155

Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Order to Show Cause

Feb. 1, 2007 Pleading / Motion / Brief
225

Report and Recommendation

July 29, 2008 Magistrate Report/Recommendation
226

Opinion and Order [Adopting the R&R without Objection; Staying the Case for One Year, Except the Pending Cross-Motions for Partial Summary Judgment]

2008 WL 3834019

Aug. 12, 2008 Order/Opinion
227

Opinion and Order [Granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment to Defendant on State-Law Claim; Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment on State-Law Claim]

581 F.Supp.2d 847

Oct. 8, 2008 Order/Opinion
231

Stipulation for Stay

Dec. 9, 2009 Pleading / Motion / Brief

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4694503/michigan-protection-advocacy-service-inc-v-caruso/

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

ECF Number Description Date Link
44

OPINION; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, blb)

April 10, 2006 RECAP
225

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that this matter be stayed for a period of twelve months; objections to R&R due within 10 days; signed by Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody (Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody, cbh)

July 29, 2008 RECAP
226

Opinion and ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 225 without objection; staying the case for one year, except the pending cross-motions for partial summary judgment; signed by Chief Judge Paul L. Maloney (Chief Judge Paul L. Maloney, aeb)

Aug. 12, 2008 RECAP
227

Opinion and ORDER denying 204 motion for partial summary judgment; granting 206 motion for summary judgment; signed by Chief Judge Paul L. Maloney (Chief Judge Paul L. Maloney, aeb)

Oct. 8, 2008 RECAP

State / Territory: Michigan

Case Type(s):

Prison Conditions

Key Dates

Filing Date: Sept. 14, 2005

Closing Date: 2011

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Michigan Protection and Advocacy Service, a private non-profit with statutory authority to investigate and protect the rights of youths with disabilities or mental illnesses.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

Patricia L. Caruso (Lake), State

Defendant Type(s):

Corrections

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

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

Indv. w/ Disab. Educ. Act (IDEA), Educ. of All Handcpd. Children Act , 20 U.S.C. § 1400

Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Mixed

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Private Settlement Agreement

Issues

General:

Administrative segregation

Disciplinary segregation

Education

Juveniles

Solitary confinement/Supermax (conditions or process)

Youth / Adult separation

Discrimination-basis:

Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)

Disability:

Mental impairment

Medical/Mental Health:

Mental health care, general

Self-injurious behaviors

Suicide prevention

Type of Facility:

Government-run

Non-government for profit