Case: Gieseking v. Schafer

2:86-04636 | U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri

Filed Date: Sept. 24, 1986

Closed Date: Jan. 1, 1989

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

In 1986, developmentally disabled citizens of the state of Missouri filed a class action lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and the Developmental Disabilities Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. §6000), against the state of Missouri in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri. The plaintiffs alleged that their rights had been violated by Missouri's failure to develop and implement individual habilitation plans for them. On August 13, 1987, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of…

In 1986, developmentally disabled citizens of the state of Missouri filed a class action lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and the Developmental Disabilities Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. §6000), against the state of Missouri in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri. The plaintiffs alleged that their rights had been violated by Missouri's failure to develop and implement individual habilitation plans for them.

On August 13, 1987, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri (Judge Scott O. Wright) held that the state's program received federal funds under the Developmental Disabilities Act (DD Act), and thus the state was required to ensure that each individual found to be developmentally disabled had a habilitation plan or received appropriate services. The court also held that the individual plaintiffs had a private cause of action to enforce the provisions of the DD Act requiring assurances in the state plan that services were provided in an individualized manner. Finally, the court held that a voluntarily confined individual's due process liberty interests were not violated by the state's failure to place the individual in community placement after a professional recommendation that he be so placed. Gieseking v. Schafer, 672 F.Supp. 1249 (W.D.Mo. 1987).

The court appointed a Special Master, and on January 20, 1989, the district court (Judge Wright) adopted the Master's recommendation that the plaintiffs' claims be dismissed, holding that the defendants were in substantial compliance with the DD Act. The court then ordered that all parties bear their own costs for this litigation.

We have no further information on the proceedings in this case.

Summary Authors

Kristen Sagar (8/7/2006)

People


Judge(s)

Wright, Scott Olin (Missouri)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Bertling, Roger J. (Missouri)

Lever, Ann D. (Missouri)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Leykam, JoAnn (Missouri)

Schmidt, Christy (Missouri)

Tansey, Mary Stewart (Missouri)

Judge(s)

Wright, Scott Olin (Missouri)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Bertling, Roger J. (Missouri)

Lever, Ann D. (Missouri)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Leykam, JoAnn (Missouri)

Schmidt, Christy (Missouri)

Tansey, Mary Stewart (Missouri)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

2:86-04636

Order

Aug. 13, 1987

Aug. 13, 1987

Order/Opinion

2:86-04636

Judgment in a Civil Case

Jan. 1, 1989

Jan. 1, 1989

Order/Opinion

2:86-04636

Order

Jan. 20, 1989

Jan. 20, 1989

Order/Opinion

Docket

Last updated Sept. 3, 2022, 3:11 a.m.

Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.

Case Details

State / Territory: Missouri

Case Type(s):

Intellectual Disability (Facility)

Key Dates

Filing Date: Sept. 24, 1986

Closing Date: Jan. 1, 1989

Case Ongoing: No reason to think so

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

developmentally disabled citizens of the state of Missouri

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

State of Missouri, State

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 15001 et seq.

Constitutional Clause(s):

Equal Protection

Availably Documents:

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Defendant

Nature of Relief:

None

Source of Relief:

Litigation

Issues

General:

Habilitation (training/treatment)

Mental Disability:

Intellectual/developmental disability, unspecified

Medical/Mental Health:

Intellectual disability/mental illness dual diagnosis

Type of Facility:

Government-run