Filed Date: Jan. 15, 2024
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This is a case about a juvenile facility with allegations of abuse and neglect in Kentucky.
Named plaintiffs, two juvenile individuals held at Adair County Youth Detention Center (ACYDC), filed a class action against the ACYDC, the Kentucky Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ), the Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services (CHFS), and various DJJ officials in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. The DJJ officials included its Commissioner, Executive Director of Office of Program Operations Services, Division Director for Office of Detention, and the Executive Director for the Office of Detention. The complaint filed on January 15, 2024, alleged that they were subject to abuse and neglect, including being held in isolation, deprived of educational instruction, denied basic hygiene and showers, and denied prescribed medications.
This lawsuit was brought under 42 U.S.C. §1983, for violations of the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed by the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The plaintiffs also alleged negligence under state negligence law arguing that the defendants were responsible for the education, medical care, and rehabilitation of the youth in its care and failed to adequately provide these services.
The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgement, actual and punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees.
The plaintiffs also requested class certification. The proposed class consisted of all individuals who were held in isolation in the Detention Center where they were subjected to abuse and neglect, including being held in isolation, deprived of educational instruction, denied basic hygiene and showers, and denied prescribed medications. The class also included girls who were denied feminine hygiene products while menstruating and whose bodies were exposed to male view. The plaintiffs were represented by private counsel. The case was assigned to Chief Judge Greg N. Stivers.
On February 13, 2024, the plaintiff filed for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. This motion is under seal, and details were not available to the Clearinghouse.
After a conference call, the parties filed an agreement on February 23, 2024, to keep the plaintiffs’ juvenile records under a protective order. This was approved by the court three days later.
On February 27, 2024, after a telephone conference, the court denied the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order as moot. The court granted the motion to file under seal.
The DJJ and its officials filed a motion to dismiss on April 9, 2024. The defendants argued that the plaintiffs’ requests for monetary relief against the defendants in their official capacities are claims barred by sovereign immunity. They also alleged the plaintiffs did not have standing to seek declaratory or injunctive relief because they were not housed in a juvenile detention center when they filed this lawsuit.
On April 10, 2024, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The complaint added details about the history of Kentucky’s juvenile residential programs, including a 1995 consent decree requiring improvement of the system and two audits conducted after incidents at the detention center. The plaintiffs also added a new claim of discrimination under Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504, Rehabilitation Act for unspecified disabilities of the plaintiffs. The complaint also added three plaintiffs: two individuals formerly held at ACYDC, and one child currently at ACYDC. In addition, they added six defendants who are officials who possess a supervisory role in one of the government agencies or youth detention centers. Finally, the complaint expanded the proposed class description to include all individuals incarcerated by DJJ who were impacted by any the following: being involuntarily held alone in a cell for punishment or non-security threat reasons; subjected to the use of chemical agents or tasers; deprived of access to education; deprived of access to personal hygiene; denied access to medical and mental healthcare; denied access to dental care; and subjected to strip searches or had clothes forcibly removed by or within view of members of the opposite sex.
On April 24, 2024, defendant DJJ and defendants DJJ officials filed a renewed motion to dismiss regarding the individual capacity claims of DJJ employees. They alleged that as government officials, they were entitled to qualified immunity for the 42 U.S.C. §1983 and negligence claims. They also argued that the ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims cannot be made against public employees in their individual capacities. On the same day, the defendants DJJ and its official filed a separate motion to dismiss regarding the official capacity claims. They argued that the plaintiffs’ requests for monetary relief against the defendants in their official capacities are claims barred by sovereign immunity. They also alleged the plaintiffs did not have standing to seek declaratory or injunctive relief because they were not housed in a juvenile detention center when they filed this lawsuit. They also filed a motion to strike the newly added plaintiffs and defendants.
The Cabinet for Health and Family Services (CHFS) filed a motion to dismiss on May 8, 2024. They argued only the claims by one of the named plaintiffs, who was in foster care during the alleged actions, applied to it. Further, it argued that the constitutional claim against it should have been dismissed because CHFS is not a “person” under 42 U.S.C. 1983. On the negligence claim, it argued that sovereign immunity barred it. They also alleged that the plaintiff’s ADA and Rehabilitation Act Claims were time-barred and that plaintiffs failed to exhaust administrative remedies. Finally, it alleged the amended complaint referred to all defendants categorically and did not provide a sufficient factual basis to distinguish the conduct of CHFS.
On January 23, 2025, the court issued an order addressing all of the motions to dismiss and the motion to strike. 2025 WL 283227. The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to strike. First, the court permitted the plaintiffs to add the minor plaintiffs who had identified a next friend or requested the appointment of a guardian ad litem, but not those who did not. Next, the court dismissed the defendants’ first motion to dismiss (from April 9) in light of the amended complaint. Then, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss from April 24 as to the official capacity claims, finding that the original two named plaintiffs lacked standing to file the lawsuit and they failed to state injunctive or declaratory claims for which relief could be granted. Then, the fourth motion to dismiss (also from April 24) was granted in part and denied in part. With the exception of one official who was alleged to have falsified incident reports, the plaintiffs’ allegations failed to overcome the defendants’ affirmative defenses of qualified immunity. The motion was granted as it related to individual liability under Section 1983 for all moving defendants, except for the one official. The court dismissed the ADA and Rehabilitation claims against defendants in their official capacity. The court also found that the state law negligence claims against all defendants survived. Last, the court granted the May 8 motion to dismiss, thus dismissing defendant CHFS from the lawsuit.
On February 3, 2025, the individual defendants filed an interlocutory appeal (Docket No. 25-5087) to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. They challenged the District Court’s denial of their motion to dismiss on grounds of federal and state qualified immunity.
This case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Cara Claflin (5/11/2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68161854/parties/kennedy-v-kentucky-department-of-juvenile-justice/
Agnew, James David (Kentucky)
Friend, John S. (Kentucky)
Baylous, Edward A. (Kentucky)
Bizzell, Mark F. (Kentucky)
Duke, Wesley W. (Kentucky)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68161854/kennedy-v-kentucky-department-of-juvenile-justice/
Last updated Nov. 28, 2025, 11:28 a.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: Jan. 15, 2024
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Juvenile individuals held at Adair County Youth Detention Center (ACYDC).
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Pending
Defendants
Kentucky Department of Juvenile Justice, State
Adair County Youth Detention Center, County
Campbell Regional Juvenile Detention Center, County
Fayette Regional Juvenile Detention Center, City
Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services, State
Kentucky Justice and Public Safety Cabinet, State
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
Other Dockets:
Western District of Kentucky 1:24-cv-00016
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 25-5087
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Affected Sex/Gender(s):
Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:
Assault/abuse by staff (facilities)