Filed Date: June 17, 2014
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case concerns alleged systemic failures to provide mental and physical healthcare in Alabama prisons. On June 17, 2014, prisoners and the Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program (“ADAP”) filed this class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. The plaintiffs sued the Alabama Department of Corrections (“ADOC”) under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Represented by the Southern Poverty Law Center, ADAP, and private counsel, the plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as class certification. They claimed that ADOC provided inadequate medical and mental health services and involuntarily medicated prisoners.
On September 8, 2015, Judge Myron H. Thompson split the case into two phases: Phase 1 would include all ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims related to physical disabilities; and Phase 2 would include all ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims related to mental health, together with all other claims. During the next year, the parties engaged in fractious discovery and crafted a settlement for the Phase 1 claims. The court allowed the plaintiffs to amend their complaint to assert associational standing on August 5, 2016. 2016 WL 4169157. On October 6, 2015, the court rejected ADOC's invitation to dismiss claims by plaintiffs who had been released from prison for lack of standing. 148 F. Supp. 3d 1329.
Judge Thompson approved the Phase 1 settlement and adopted it as a consent decree on September 9, 2016. The court found that the named plaintiffs had standing and certified a settlement class of "any current or future inmate in the physical custody of the Alabama Department of Corrections who has a disability . . . excluding those inmates whose disabilities relate solely to or arise from mental disease, illness, or defect." The agreement required ADOC to:
The agreement also contained the following provisions related to implementation:
318 F.R.D. 652.
Judge Thompson split the remaining Phase 2 claims into two parts on September 19, 2016. Phase 2A would consider the plaintiffs’ ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and Eighth Amendment mental health claims, along with their involuntary medication claims. Phase 2B would consider the remaining Eighth Amendment claims about inadequate medical and dental care.
Judge Thompson issued three key rulings on November 25, 2016. First, the court largely denied ADOC’s motion for summary judgment, but dismissed the claims of six individual plaintiffs who had already been released from prison. 219 F. Supp. 3d 1100. Second, the court found that ADAP had associational standing under the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act (“PAIMI”), 42 U.S.C. § 10805. 219 F. Supp. 3d 1163. Third, the court certified two classes. The first consisted of prisoners with serious mental health problems who are or will be subject to ADOC’s mental health care policies, and the second consisted of prisoners with serious mental health problems who are or will be subject to ADOC’s involuntary medication policies. 317 F.R.D. 634.
The Phase 2A trial took place in early 2017, and the parties concurrently worked towards a settlement. They proposed a class action settlement of the plaintiffs’ ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims on January 11, 2017, which Judge Thompson preliminarily approved on February 22, 2017. The parties also proposed a settlement of the plaintiffs’ involuntary medication claims on April 25, 2017, which Judge Thompson preliminarily approved on May 11, 2017. 2017 WL 1956778. However, the parties did not resolve the plaintiffs’ Eighth Amendment mental health claims.
On June 27, 2017, Judge Thompson issued a 302-page opinion and order on the Phase 2A Eighth Amendment mental health claim. The court concluded that ADOC’s "horrendously inadequate" mental health services violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. As reported in The Atlantic, the trial included testimony from a prisoner who had not received adequate mental health care in prison, became agitated during testimony, and had to be coaxed back to the stand from the judge's chambers. Judge Thompson was concerned and ordered a full report on the prisoner’s condition and steps taken to address it. Sadly, the prisoner committed suicide ten days after his testimony and before corrective measures were taken. In his opinion, Judge Thompson noted, "[w]ithout question, [the prisoner’s] testimony and the tragic event that followed darkly draped all the subsequent testimony like a pall." He added "[ADOC] could have taken [remedial] action in 2015, after the first meeting on suicides, or in 2016, after the second meeting, rather than waiting until January 2017. By that time, twelve more people, including a plaintiff in this lawsuit, had committed suicide." Judge Thompson found that ADOC acted with deliberate indifference towards its prisoners, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The court also rejected ADOC’s arguments that its leaders lacked the authority to fix the problems and that a federal court could not order a state to spend money on prisons. Emphasizing the "severity and urgency of the need for mental-health care," Judge Thompson declared that the proposed relief must be both immediate and long-term, and ordered the parties to meet to discuss a remedy. 257 F. Supp. 3d 1171.
The next day, Judge Thompson adopted the parties’ Phase 2A ADA and Rehabilitation Act settlement as a consent decree. The court certified an injunctive relief settlement class defined as “any current or future inmate in the physical custody of ADOC who has a disability . . . relating to or arising from mental disease, illness, or defect.” Under the terms of the settlement, ADOC agreed to provide adaptive behavior/life skills training to inmates with certain mental disabilities. The training would be designed to help prisoners make good decisions, manage stress, communicate, identify consequences of their actions, advocate for themselves, access prison services, maintain hygiene, make good use of time, and understand prison rules. ADAP obtained access to ADOC’s facilities and records to monitor ADOC’s compliance. ADOC could request termination once the consent decree was in place for at least five years and it was in substantial compliance for at least twelve consecutive months. As part of the order, the plaintiffs obtained $250,000 in attorneys' fees and $12,000 per year in monitoring fees.
On July 25, 2017, Judge Thompson issued an opinion that provided a legal basis for his approval of the settlement. 321 F.R.D. 653.
Judge Thompson issued a final approval order and consent decree for the involuntary medication settlement on September 6, 2017. ADOC agreed to strengthen the procedural safeguards for prisoners facing involuntary medication. It also agreed to provide ADAP with monthly reports of involuntary medication proceedings and pay $230,000 in attorneys' fees. The consent decree was set to expire after two years. On November 27, 2017, Judge Thompson issued an opinion explaining his reasoning for approving the involuntary-medication settlement agreement. 2017 WL 5665334.
The resolution of the plaintiff’s involuntary medication claims left outstanding only the Phase 2A Eighth Amendment remedy and Phase 2B claims. On September 13, 2017, Judge Thompson decided to address the remedies for the Phase 2A Eighth Amendment violations in parts, starting with ADOC's chronic staffing shortfalls. The court also severed Phase 2B’s medical and dental claims on September 28, 2017.
In early 2018, the plaintiffs informed the court that ADOC was holding prisoners with serious mental illnesses in segregation (solitary confinement). Judge Thompson ordered ADOC to provide information on certain mentally ill prisoners who had been confined in segregation for at least 30 days on February 8, 2018. And on February 16, 2018, the court expanded the order to require ADOC to provide the plaintiffs weekly lists of prisoners in segregation.
On February 20, 2018, Judge Thompson issued the first opinion on the Phase 2A Eighth Amendment remedies. The opinion largely adopted ADOC’s plan to address understaffing. Under the plan, (1) ADOC would retain consultants to analyze its flaws and develop mental health staffing guidelines; (2) ADOC would contract with a mental health services vendor to hire additional staff immediately; and (3) ADOC’s Office of Health Services Staffing would reorganize and begin to exercise oversight over ADOC’s facilities. 2018 WL 985759.
In a series of orders issued in April, May, and June 2018, Judge Thompson ordered ADOC to:
In early 2019, the plaintiffs moved for a temporary restraining order to stop ADOC from placing prisoners with serious mental illnesses in segregation. In response, Judge Thompson ordered ADOC to provide a comprehensive list of prisoners with serious mental illnesses in segregation on January 22, 2019. On February 14, 2019, the court decided to treat the motion as a request for a preliminary injunction and consider it within the context of unresolved Phase 2A remedial measures.
On February 11, 2019, Judge Thompson issued an opinion after further briefing and examination of the trial record. The court clarified ADOC’s Eighth Amendment liability for prisoners in segregation with serious mental-health needs. Judge Thompson held that by not adequately conducting regular mental-health evaluations of prisoners in segregation, ADOC subjected those prisoners to a substantial risk of serious harm—in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 367 F. Supp. 3d 1340.
Litigation over remedial measures continued into May 2019, when Judge Thompson decided to act more aggressively because of a spate of prisoner suicides: fifteen in the span of fifteen months. On May 4, 2019, the court found that “ADOC continues to fail to provide adequate suicide-prevention measures” and granted the plaintiffs’ motion for immediate relief on the issue of suicide prevention. 383 F. Supp. 3d 1218. The order, largely based on an expert report prepared by outside investigators, ordered ADOC to:
The court ordered ADOC to track its progress toward compliance and decided to appoint an external monitor (whose identity was left to the parties) with the power to review records and conduct site visits. After two years, either party could move to terminate the external monitoring. 2019 WL 1978476.
Later that month, Judge Thompson directed the parties to file a report on their “pursuit of a path” to “global resolution” of the remaining issues in the case. On June 10, 2019, the court agreed to stay the proceedings regarding mental- and dental-care claims and several Phase 2A remedial orders. The continuing matters, however, included remedying ADA-noncompliance, preventing prisoner suicides, and addressing ADOC’s chronic understaffing.
On September 5, 2019, the parties jointly submitted an agreed-upon schedule for implementing ADA alterations (such as installing ADA-compliant restrooms and improving access to outdoor spaces). The next day, they submitted a notice describing agreed-upon suicide prevention remedies (including increasing the number of staff on hand and stipulating training and preparation requirements for staff).
The court conducted a hearing on October 21, 2019, during which the parties requested to modify the Phase 1 consent decree. On October 24, 2019, Judge Thompson granted them leave to revise the consent decree to reschedule evidentiary hearings and status conferences. 2019 WL 5459721.
After a hearing on December 6, 2019, Judge Thompson ordered the parties to file a joint report on ADOC’s mental-health statistics and caseload information by December 20. The court also ordered the Phase 2A remedial efforts regarding suicide prevention to go into effect beginning December 13, 2019. On December 11, 2019, Judge Thompson approved the parties’ proposal for a mental-health staffing plan.
On December 19, 2019, the court ordered the parties to come up with a process to “identify functional segregation,” meaning spaces that, although not officially built or designed to be segregation units, could safely and effectively serve as such units. Judge Thompson instructed the parties to construct this process “with the goals of creating a manageable, not overly burdensome, and yet objectively verifiable process.” 2019 WL 7041620.
Early the next year, on January 10, the court issued several interim injunctions as the result of several joint stipulations by the parties. The orders implemented procedures and practices regarding mental health classification and mental illness identification, stopgap measures for removing inmates with serious mental illnesses from segregation, confidentiality orders, understaffing remedies, and functional segregation unit solutions. On January 14, 2020, Judge Thompson ordered the parties to meet and discuss whether transferring mentally ill patients implicated procedural due process concerns. 2020 WL 398557. The parties met on January 17, 2020, after which the court dismissed and set aside the issue.
On January 22, 2020, the court instituted a notice-and-comment period for the proposed modifications to the parties’ ADA settlement. ADOC was instructed to collect comments from the class members and to respond to objections and concerns raised by those members. ADOC was also instructed to provide accommodations to inmates who had difficulty reading, writing, or accessing the notice. 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10360. Because the parties failed to reach a final agreement, the court issued more interim injunctions on March 31, 2020, extending the previous injunctive relief to last until December 30, 2020.
The court ordered the parties to file a joint proposed opinion approving the proposed modifications to the 2016 consent decree for Phase 1 ADA modifications by April 21, 2020. The court approved the primary proposed modification of the 2016 consent decree on May 12, 2020. This extended ADOC’s deadline for remediation by approximately eight years, until November 1, 2027. The proposal broke down remediation into three phases—the first round of remediation would be completed by 2023, and the second and third by 2027. Another proposed modification included extending monitoring by ADAP (and associated fees) from 2022 until one year after the remediation is completed. Judge Thompson emphasized the accommodations provided for the notice and comment period, including availability of the proposed modification in Spanish, braille, and larger print sizes. Copies of the proposed modifications were also posted in all dormitories and libraries, and delivered to class members with mobility challenges. The court justified the proposed modifications because an architectural survey revealed that almost every facility would need to be at least partially updated, but the 2016 consent decree anticipated that only up to half of ADOC facilities would need to be remediated to achieve ADA compliance. 2020 WL 2395987. The court appointed Magistrate Judge Stephen M. Doyle to serve as an arbitrator for disputes arising out of the Phase 1 consent decree and Phase 2A ADA Consent decree on July 7, 2020.
On May 29, 2020, Judge Thompson issued an order regarding Phase 2A’s inpatient treatment remediation. The court required ADOC to submit plans regarding: (1) having more and adequate inpatient treatment beds; (2) having more and adequate treatment space; (3) making Stabilization Unit cells suicide-resistant; and (4) managing high temperatures for patients taking psychotropic medication. The court agreed with the plaintiffs that a monitoring scheme would be necessary to ensure compliance with those remedies, but reserved resolution for a later date. 2020 WL 2789880. The court later declined to take further action on the high-temperature issue.
After reviewing ADOC’s quarterly staffing report, the court expressed concern that ADOC’s staffing efforts were not sufficient to ensure compliance by the February 20, 2022 deadline. On June 8, 2020, the court ordered ADOC to respond to this concern. ADOC’s response highlighted the dual challenges of staving off COVID-19 and reversing a decade of declining correctional staffing. The court ordered the parties to engage in mediation on the issue of correctional staffing and submit briefs by July 27, 2020. 2020 WL 3621312. The court extended the deadline until September 2020, upon the parties’ requests. Ultimately, this deadline was extended by the December 7, 2021 omnibus order, detailed below.
On July 27, 2020, one of the class members committed suicide after being segregated for 796 days. The class member was the seventh person (and sixth Black person) to die by suicide in ADOC custody since the court issued its remedial opinion regarding suicide prevention in May 2019. In their notice informing the court of the suicide, the plaintiffs once again emphasized the lack of mental health care and out-of-cell time granted to class members incarcerated in segregation and segregation-like facilities.
The court issued a Phase 2A opinion on September 2, 2020, holding that external monitoring was necessary because ADOC had consistently failed to implement improvements to mental health care over the course of several years. The court divided the monitoring scheme into three phases: (1) assessment and monitoring of ADOC’s compliance with the court’s remedial orders by an external monitoring team (EMT); (2) the EMT, as part of its monitoring, training the ADOC how to monitor itself via an internal monitoring team (IMT); and (3) the ADOC monitoring itself through the IMT, with the EMT available for consultation. The shift from phase one to phrase two would occur automatically after one year. 483 F. Supp. 3d 1136.
ADOC argued that the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) § 3626(a)(1)(A) required the court to find a “current ongoing violation” of federal law to maintain relief. The court rejected this argument on September 14, 2020, holding that ADOC conflated the PLRA’s requirements under § 3626(a)(1)(A) and § 3626(b)(3). The former section, which governed entry of injunctive relief, required meeting a “need-narrowness-intrusive test”—and did not contain language regarding the ongoing violation of a constitutional right. The latter provision concerned only formal termination of relief. Judge Thompson concluded that, absent a proper motion for termination, the court did not need to find an ongoing constitutional violation to maintain injunctive relief. 2020 WL 5517262.
Following the September 14 decision, ADOC filed a proper motion to terminate relief. On September 23, 2020, the court observed that the motion covered fifteen different remedial orders. Of those, the court found that thirteen pertained to the defendants’ failure to comply with prior orders. Additionally, one of the remaining two orders required the defendants to maintain a designation system for persons with serious mental illnesses in the prison system. The court declined to rule on these fourteen provisions, and its language suggested reluctance to even consider termination. 2020 WL 5658886.
When a motion to terminate is filed, the PLRA, 18 U.S.C. § 3626(e)(2)(A)(i), automatically stays any prospective relief until the motion is resolved. However, on September 24, 2020, the court postponed the stay for good cause at the request of the plaintiffs. 2020 WL 5735086.
ADOC withdrew its motion to terminate those fourteen orders on October 2, 2020. As to the fifteenth “order,” the court found that it was merely a private settlement agreement that did not involve the possibility of court enforcement; thus, it was not something the court could consider for termination.
On October 29, 2020, the Court terminated several provisions pursuant to the parties’ joint statement of remedial stipulations. Terminated provisions fell under staffing, segregation, mental health coding, mental health referral, treatment planning, confidentiality, disciplinary, and level of care orders. All of the provisions under the stopgap remedial orders were terminated.
The following year, on April 6, the plaintiffs filed an updated notice stating that three individuals imprisoned in ADOC custody committed suicide in the preceding four months. This brought the number of individuals who had committed suicide in ADOC custody since the 2017 Phase 2A liability opinion to twenty-seven.
The court issued a more than 200-page Phase 2A omnibus remedial opinion on December 27, 2021. The court separated the opinion into three parts: Part I addressed the history of the litigation and the legal standards governing the court’s provision of relief; Part II addressed the ways that conditions in ADOC facilities had changed since the 2017 liability opinion; and Part III broke the order down into fifteen overarching sections, each reviewing the parties’ proposals, the court’s determination, and discussion of how the court’s determination met the PLRA requirements. Throughout the opinion, the court balanced the need to protect prisoners with realistic guidelines and timelines. For instance, the court extended the deadline for the remedial orders regarding correctional staffing from February 20, 2022 to July 1, 2025, requiring ADOC to propose realistic benchmarks annually to update the court on progress. 562 F. Supp. 3d 1178.
On January 14, 2022, the court announced that it would take no further action on the Phase 2A ADA aspects of the case. The court noted that the parties could still resort to the ADA consent decree dispute resolution process when necessary. To prevent the ADA aspects of the case from falling through the cracks, the court scheduled tri-annual status conferences through February 7, 2025, to be heard in tandem with the Phase 2A Eighth Amendment claim conferences.
Later that month, on January 24, ADOC appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (docket no. 22-10292). The plaintiffs filed a cross-appeal two days later. ADOC also moved to stay the December 27, 2021 Phase 2A omnibus opinion and order for the duration of the interlocutory appeal. ADOC contended that the court had erred by entering systemwide relief. The district court declined to grant the stay on January 27, 2022, but stated that it would resolve the stay motion in the next two weeks. 2022 WL 264873.
On February 14, 2022, the court held that, given ADOC’s history of systemic violations and failure to appeal prior findings of systemic violations, systemwide relief remained appropriate. The court granted ADOC’s motion to stay the components of the Phase 2A omnibus remedial order pertaining to compliance with the “Checklist for the ‘Suicide-Resistant’ Design of Correctional Facilities” in Restrictive Housing Units (“RHU”), pending appeal. Judge Thompson granted the stay because of ADOC’s need for a reasonable time frame, but emphasized the need for “urgent” reform in RHUs and other facilities. 2022 WL 466998.
The Eleventh Circuit declined to stay the injunction pending appeal on March 9, 2022. Circuit Judges Adalberto Jordan and Robin S. Rosenbaum issued the order, with Circuit Judge Robert J. Luck dissenting.
On August 5, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a report alleging that ADOC remained too understaffed to provide constitutionally adequate mental health care. In response, the court ordered the parties to attend mediation and develop (1) a plan to remedy ADOC’s understaffing and (2) a method to continually assess the effectiveness of that plan. Later that month, on August 18, the court entered two orders about training and the staffing analysis. A week later, on August 23, the court referred the parties to mediation to develop a plan regarding high temperatures in mental health units.
Later that month, on August 22, the parties asked the court to extend its supervision and monitoring over the Phase 2A decree provisions related to IQ testing and adaptive behavior/life skills training. The court approved the request a week later, on September 1, holding that the extension complied with the PLRA. 2022 WL 16821528. The court extended the Phase 2 consent decree through October 1, 2023.
The Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs in the Eleventh Circuit on December 19, 2022. The United States argued that (1) the plaintiffs did not have to re-prove an ongoing constitutional violation in the remedial phase when the court had already found an earlier constitutional violation, and (2) the district court was correct that ADOC's systemic violations warranted systemwide relief. 2022 WL 17902736. The National Disability Rights Network also filed an amicus brief for the plaintiffs in the Eleventh Circuit.
On September 21, 2023, the district court noted that ADOC had offered all ADA-eligible inmates an opportunity to take the adaptive behavior/life skills training courses. Judge Thompson held that ADOC had thus complied with, and exceeded, all the requirements of the Phase 2A ADA consent decree. 2023 WL 6384059.
Throughout 2022 and 2023, the parties continued to file status reports and weekly “exceptional circumstances” reports. On November 21, 2023, the court ordered ADOC to file monthly progress reports on the safe functioning of RHUs. 2023 WL 8092999. The court clarified seven monitoring issues raised by the parties on February 29, 2024, before the external monitoring team begins monitoring in 2024. 2024 WL 866532.
On March 7, 2024, the Eleventh Circuit heard oral argument on the plaintiffs’ interlocutory cross-appeal of the December 27, 2021 Phase 2A omnibus remedial opinion.
The case is ongoing in the district court and the Eleventh Circuit as of May 1, 2024.
Summary Authors
Soojin Cha (7/4/2016)
Susie Choi (3/21/2017)
Kaley Hanenkrat (3/6/2018)
Timothy Leake (6/30/2019)
Elizabeth Helpling (3/12/2020)
Hannah Juge (4/21/2022)
Sophia Acker (5/1/2024)
Duke v. Dunn, Northern District of Alabama (2014)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4125874/parties/braggs-v-hamm/
Alekseyeva, Kristina (Alabama)
Austin, Ashley Nicole (Alabama)
Barry-Blocker, Jonathan Michael (Alabama)
Baxter, Glenn Nelson (Alabama)
Addison, Alyce Robertson (Alabama)
Alekseyeva, Kristina (Alabama)
Austin, Ashley Nicole (Alabama)
Barry-Blocker, Jonathan Michael (Alabama)
Baxter, Glenn Nelson (Alabama)
Brownstein, Rhonda C. (Alabama)
Clotfelter, Patricia (Alabama)
Cordner, Susanne Emily (Alabama)
Debrosse, Diandra S. (Alabama)
Evenson, Rebekah B. (California)
Hackney, James Patrick (Alabama)
Hamilton, Bruce Warfield (Alabama)
Haskell, Miriam Fahsi (Florida)
Hoppock, Sophia Leigh (Alabama)
Lawrence, Barbara Ann (Alabama)
Light, Ashley Nicole (Alabama)
McCrary, Latasha Lanette (Alabama)
McShane, Michael Jerome (Alabama)
Mudd, Julia Thompson (Alabama)
Norman, Sara Linda (California)
Ozment, James Franklin (Alabama)
Rubens, Rachel Sarah (Alabama)
Sagar, Jo-Ann Tamila (Alabama)
Somerville, William G III (Alabama)
Specter, Donald H. (California)
Stetson, Catherine E (Alabama)
Toll, Joshua Christopher (Alabama)
Van Der Pol, William Jr. (Indiana)
Walsh, Andrew Philip (Alabama)
Washington, David Clay (Alabama)
Addison, Alyce Robertson (Alabama)
Coleman, Bryan Arthur (Alabama)
Dorr, Luther Maxwell Jr. (Alabama)
Edwards, Michael Leon (Alabama)
Heinss, Christopher Fred (Alabama)
Johnson, Deana Simon (Georgia)
Kuffner, Christopher Stephen (Alabama)
LaCour, Edmund Gerard (Alabama)
Lunsford, William R. (Alabama)
McAdory, Janine McKinnon (Alabama)
Mehta, Amit Priyavadan (Alabama)
Perreault, Carson T. (Alabama)
Roberts, Mary-Coleman Mayberry (Alabama)
Smithee, Stephanie L (Alabama)
Stafford, Clifford Z. (Alabama)
Steely, Kenneth Scott (Alabama)
Stewart, Joseph Gordon Jr. (Alabama)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4125874/braggs-v-hamm/
Last updated Dec. 17, 2024, 7:53 p.m.
State / Territory: Alabama
Case Type(s):
Intellectual Disability (Facility)
Special Collection(s):
Post-PLRA enforceable consent decrees
DOJ Civil Rights Division Statements of Interest
Post-WalMart decisions on class certification
Key Dates
Filing Date: June 17, 2014
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Alabama prisoners with mental and physical disabilities and the Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Attorney Organizations:
NDRN/Protection & Advocacy Organizations
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Granted
Defendants
Alabama Department of Corrections, State
Defendant Type(s):
Facility Type(s):
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
Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness (PAIMI) Act, 42 U.S.C. § 10801
Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Procedural Due Process
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Content of Injunction:
Develop anti-discrimination policy
Provide antidiscrimination training
Implement complaint/dispute resolution process
Goals (e.g., for hiring, admissions)
Amount Defendant Pays: $1,730,000+
Order Duration: 2016 - 2027
Issues
General/Misc.:
Incident/accident reporting & investigations
Informed consent/involuntary medication
Sanitation / living conditions
Staff (number, training, qualifications, wages)
Disability and Disability Rights:
Intellectual/developmental disability, unspecified
Discrimination Basis:
Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)
Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:
Solitary confinement/Supermax (conditions or process)
Suicide prevention (facilities)
Medical/Mental Health Care:
Intellectual/Developmental Disability
Intellectual disability/mental illness dual diagnosis