Case: Thomas S. v. Flaherty

3:82-cv-00418 | U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina

Filed Date: July 7, 1982

Closed Date: 1998

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On July 7, 1982, a mentally disabled ward of the state of North Carolina, filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the State of North Carolina in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants violated his constitutional rights by denying him treatment of his mental disabilities (intellectual disabilities and schizophrenia) in a less restrictive, more community-based setting. On May 26, 1983, the parties agreed to a special …

On July 7, 1982, a mentally disabled ward of the state of North Carolina, filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the State of North Carolina in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants violated his constitutional rights by denying him treatment of his mental disabilities (intellectual disabilities and schizophrenia) in a less restrictive, more community-based setting.

On May 26, 1983, the parties agreed to a special treatment plan which provided appropriate community-based treatment for the plaintiff until March 1, 1984. That agreement was incorporated into a judgment by the court, and the court deferred ruling on all the parties' motions for summary judgment, designating the case as inactive until February 1, 1984. During the interim, the plaintiff was shifted to three additional placements. The defendants eventually placed him in the Gaston County detoxification facility because they had no other place for him to live.

On September 18, 1984, the court (Judge James Bryan McMillan) granted summary judgment to the plaintiff on his constitutional claims. The court held that the defendants, who had been appointed guardians of the plaintiff, were charged with the responsibility, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, to ensure that legitimate restraints placed on the plaintiff were no more restrictive than necessary. Thomas S. by Brooks v. Morrow, 601 F.Supp. 1055 (W.D.N.C. 1984). The defendants appealed.

On December 7, 1984, the district court permitted the intervention of four additional plaintiffs and certified them as a class. However, the court stayed further litigation on behalf of the intervening plaintiffs and class members pending the outcome of the defendants' appeal. On January 9, 1986, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (Judge John Decker Butzner, Jr.) affirmed the district court's decision. Thomas S. v. Morrow, 781 F.2d 367 (4th Cir. 1986). The defendants appealed that decision, and on May 19, 1986, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal. Kirk v. Thomas S., 476 U.S. 1124 (1986).

On November 21, 1988, following trial, the district court (Judge McMillan) held that the defendants had violated the due process rights of the members of the plaintiff class. The court held that the plaintiffs had a constitutional right to live in a minimally adequate habilitation in a safe environment, free from undue bodily restraint. Thomas S. by Brooks v. Flaherty, 699 F.Supp. 1178 (W.D.N.C. 1988). The defendants appealed. On May 23, 1990, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (Judge Butzner) affirmed the district court's decision. Thomas S. by Brooks v. Flaherty, 902 F.2d 250 (4th Cir. 1990). The defendants appealed. On October 29, 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal. Flaherty v. Thomas S., 498 U.S. 951 (1990).

Several years later, the defendants asked the court to narrow the plaintiff class to include only those "treated clinically as mentally retarded." The district court (Judge McMillan) declined to narrow the class in that manner, and the defendants appealed. On July 15, 1993, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued a per curiam opinion affirming the district court's ruling. Thomas S. v. Flaherty, No. 93-1018, 1993 WL 264697 (4th Cir. 1993).

The parties continued to litigate regarding attorneys' fees, and on July 27, 1998, the district court closed the case.

Summary Authors

Kristen Sagar (3/28/2007)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/10552443/parties/s-v-britt/


Judge(s)

Butzner, John Decker Jr. (Virginia)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Boyles, Scott (North Carolina)

Brooks, Joyce Murphy (North Carolina)

Attorney for Defendant

Ambrose, Bruce S. (North Carolina)

Broome, Dennis L. (North Carolina)

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

3:82-cv-00418

Docket (PACER)

Thomas S. v. Britt

Aug. 13, 1998

Aug. 13, 1998

Docket

3:82-cv-00418

Order

Thomas S. v. Morrow

Sept. 18, 1984

Sept. 18, 1984

Order/Opinion

601 F.Supp. 1055

84-02254

84-02255

Reported Opinion

Thomas S. v. Morrow

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Feb. 19, 1986

Feb. 19, 1986

Order/Opinion

781 F.2d 367

85-01590

[Untitled]

Kirk v. Thomas S.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 19, 1986

May 19, 1986

Order/Opinion

476 U.S. 1124

3:82-cv-00418

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

Nov. 21, 1988

Nov. 21, 1988

Order/Opinion

699 F.Supp. 1178

89-01006

Opinion

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

May 23, 1990

May 23, 1990

Order/Opinion

902 F.2d 250

90-00366

Memorandum Decision

Flaherty v. Thomas S.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 29, 1990

Oct. 29, 1990

Order/Opinion

498 U.S. 951

93-01018

Opinion

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

July 15, 1993

July 15, 1993

Order/Opinion

998 F.2d 1010

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/10552443/s-v-britt/

Last updated June 5, 2025, 11:51 p.m.

Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.

Case Details