Filed Date: July 8, 1987
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
On July 8, 1987, the Supporters of Developmentally Disabled New Mexicans, Inc. and twenty-one persons with developmental disabilities filed this class action in District Court for the District of New Mexico. The plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, challenging the institutionalization of developmentally disabled persons at two state-owned and operated institutions: 1) Fort Stanton Hospital and Training School (Fort Stanton) and 2) Los Lunas Hospital and Training School (Los Lunas). The New Mexico Human Services Department ran the institutions. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, asking the defendants to allow developmentally disabled persons at Fort Stanton and Los Lunas to live in integrated, family-like settings within the community.
In June 1988, the District Court (Judge James A. Parker) allowed more than 125 parents and guardians of residents of the facilities to intervene. The intervenors also wanted to bring the facilities into compliance with federal law, but opposed the plaintiffs' efforts to require the mandatory transfer of residents to community-based facilities.
On May 23, 1989, the District Court certified the class. The class consisted of all persons who resided at either facility or who would become residents while the action remained pending, and all persons who had been transferred from these two institutions to other state facilities. The class was divided into two subclasses: (1) those who sought both closure of Fort Stanton and Los Lunas and community placement of the residents, and (2) those who sought to improve the conditions at the institutions, but opposed mandatory transfers of residents. Thirteen of the original plaintiffs were named class representatives.
Trial began in October 1989 and continued for eight weeks through April 1990. Evidence was presented at trial by the original thirteen plaintiffs as to conditions at the institutions. Following the trial, the plaintiffs moved to disqualify District Judge Parker due to ex-parte communications with the court-appointed expert. The motion was denied. 757 F.Supp. 1231 (D.N.M.1990).
On December 28, 1990, the District Court (Judge Parker) entered a comprehensive order in which it made detailed findings of fact based on the evidence presented at trial. 757 F.Supp. 1243 (D.N.M. 1990). The court found that the conditions at Fort Stanton and Los Lunas violated the plaintiffs' rights under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and under the substantive due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The parties were ordered to submit a plan to correct the numerous deficiencies. The court set the deadline for correction for September 10, 1991.
The order required the development of individual programs of treatment for the residents of the facilities, the prevention of abuse and reduction of accidents and injuries to the residents, better training and supervision of staff, and improvements in treatment, record keeping, and services in other areas. The defendants were also ordered to prepare a plan for transfer to a community setting for each resident of Fort Stanton and Los Lunas who had been recommended for transfer by an interdisciplinary treatment team (IDT). The IDTs were prohibited from considering the availability of community facilities when making their transfer evaluations. The intervenors appealed, but the defendants did not join in the appeal.
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals (Circuit Judge Tacha) reversed in part and remanded the case, holding that the District Court went too far when it ordered that the IDTs were prohibited from considering the availability of community facilities when making transfer decisions. 964 F.2d 980 (10th Cir. 1992).
On January 27, 1994, the lower court granted plaintiffs leave to amend to include a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act in the complaint. Thereafter, the remedial stage of the litigation continued.
In 1994, New Mexico elected to close Fort Stanton by 1995 and transfer all residents to community-based services. The parties filed a joint motion to modify portions of the District Court's December 1990 order and to terminate its Fort Stanton requirement upon closure. The court granted the motion, relieving the defendants from making further improvements to Fort Stanton. Los Lunas was eventually closed in 1997, and its residents were similarly moved into community-based care facilities.
To ensure that the plaintiffs' rights were not being violated in the community settings going forward, and to "define the further actions and requirements which the defendants must complete and the services, supports, and benefits which must be provided," the parties filed their Joint Stipulation on Disengagement ("JSD"). After a fairness hearing on November 20, 1997, the District Court entered an Order Approving Stipulation on Disengagement on December 19, 1997.
On April 2, 1999, the defendants filed a motion for relief from the court's December 19, 1997 order, based on the recent Supreme Court opinion in Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261 (1997). The defendants argued that Coeur d'Alene Tribe effectively narrowed an exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity, such that it was no longer applicable to the defendants in this case. The defendants requested that the Court vacate the JSD and dismiss the case. District Judge Parker denied the motion on September 7, 1999. 1999 WL 35808917.
Remediation continued. As substantial compliance with certain provisions and requirements of the JSD was achieved, the defendants notified the Court and filed motions to terminate oversight of those specific JSD provisions.
On October 31, 2003, the District Court denied the defendants' motion to vacate the JSD or to stay the proceedings while Frew v. Hawkins was pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. Frew addressed issues of state immunity regarding enforcement of consent decrees. 540 U.S. 431 (2004).
In May 2004, the plaintiffs filed a motion for an order to show cause and for further remedial relief to require the defendants to comply with the court's 1997 order approving the JSD. On May 20, 2005, the District Court adopted a joint stipulation of the parties which resolved disagreements over the defendants' compliance with certain JSD provisions. This created new obligations for the defendants, requiring them to address deficiencies in the following areas: case management; quality enhancement; incident management; behavior services; crisis services; sexuality services; supported employment services; vocational rehabilitation; and day services.
The improvements required by the Joint Stipulation were supposed to be implemented by the end of fiscal year 2007. The defendants were not in full compliance with the Joint Stipulation by this point. So on December 21, 2007 the court entered an order appointing Dr. Sue Gant as a Rule 706 Expert, defining her role to be "to substantially assist the Court in the determination of compliance with the orders of the Court, including the Joint Stipulation[.]" Dr. Gant has issued several reports over the years as part of this role.
On July 15, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion for further remedial relief, alleging that the defendants were in substantial non-compliance with the JSD and the joint stipulation with respect to providing adequate health care, safe environments, and adequately supported employment for class members. On February 9, 2011, the court denied this motion without prejudice, as it pertained to issues that could not be resolved until after the results of an evidentiary hearing and thus would need to be rewritten. The evidentiary hearing occurred between June 13 and June 17, 2011. On November 14, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for further remedial relief, in light of the outcome of the hearing.
On October 12, 2012, as a result of the June 2011 hearing, the court issued extensive findings of fact and conclusions of law. 2012 WL 13076262. It found that the defendants had not substantially complied with the JSD or the joint stipulation in many areas and had failed to comply with recommendations made by the 706 Expert (Dr. Gant), which would have moved them closer to compliance with the stipulations. The defendants failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that their failure to comply fully with the JSD did not defeat essential purposes of the JSD, e.g., to provide class members with adequate health care and a safe environment, and to provide class members with the opportunity to engage in a supported employment. The court agreed to appoint a Compliance Administrator with the appropriate expertise "to prod Defendants into final substantial compliance." The court held that the defendants should be in compliance with the JSD and joint stipulation within 18 months of the appointment of the Administrator.
Additionally, in the October 12, 2012 findings of fact and law, Judge Parker also granted the plaintiffs leave to file a motion under a claim of disparate treatment, arising from the allegation that the defendants denied services and opportunities to more severely disabled class members than it granted to less severely disabled members. By allowing this, the court elected not to follow the recent Tenth Circuit precedent case Cohon v. New Mexico Dept. of Health, 646 F.3d 717 (10th Cir. 2011) (holding that the courts do not recognize disparate treatment between different degrees of disability to be prohibited discrimination), and finding the holding in that case to be contrary to the landmark Supreme Court decision in Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999).
On January 1, 2013, Dr. Sue Gant was appointed Compliance Administrator, with the consent of the parties. She was scheduled to make progress reports every six months, beginning July 2013. From 2013-2016, the defendants periodically filed unopposed motions for partial disengagement from portions of the JSD and the Joint Stipulation.
On November 21, 2014, the defendants filed "evaluative components" as directed by the court to assess its progress with meeting the goals and objectives of the Safety, Health, and Supported Employment Plans, all remaining obligations. The defendants continued to file occasional motions for partial disengagement. On April 3, 2015, the court determined that the defendants were not yet in complete compliance with the goals and objectives previously set out and directed the parties to continue to work together on compliance.
In June 2015, the parties jointly filed a revised final list of objectives in the areas of health, safety, and supported employment with projected completion dates.
In August 2015, the defendants moved to vacate all consent decrees and to terminate the court's oversight, arguing that changed factual circumstances warranted the requested relief. The court denied the motion in 2016 and the defendants appealed to the Tenth Circuit. On January 23, 2018, the Tenth Circuit vacated the District Court's 2016 order and remanded for the lower court to make up-to-date findings and determine whether the defendants were currently violating class members' rights. Jackson v. Los Lunas Cmty. Program, 880 F.3d 1176 (2018).
After the Tenth Circuit remanded, the parties engaged in discovery. In 2018 and early 2019, the parties conducted discovery before determining that the most efficient and appropriate resolution was to enter a settlement agreement. Back in the district court, on April 17, 2019, the parties jointly filed a motion asking the Court to give preliminary approval to the settlement agreement. On April 18, 2019, the Court held a hearing on the motion. On April 19, 2020, the Court approved the preliminary settlement agreement and directed the parties to issue notice to all plaintiff class members and intervenors. On June 4, 2019, the parties filed their joint motion for final approval, joint memorandum, and final settlement agreement. The court held a hearing on June 12, 2019 on final approval of the settlement agreement. In a June 21, 2019 opinion, Judge Parker granted final approval of the settlement agreement. 2019 WL 2581629. Judge Parker explained that the settlement agreement was designed to eliminate the backlog of incident investigations and mortality reviews, as well as to implement procedures for timely investigation of incidents and timely mortality reviews. The settlement agreement required Defendants to provide health-related services, such as having new state-employed nurses reviewing and monitoring the health of class members and taking corrective action as necessary. The settlement agreement also outlined procedures to collect additional data on the healthcare needs of class members.
On October 3, 2019, the defendants filed a motion for injunctive relief regarding the actions of the community monitor, and a motion to enforce the settlement agreement as to the operation of the individual quality review. Through these motions, the defendants asked the court to clarify the procedure for state employees going through the qualification process to become a reviewer for the Individual Quality Review (IQR). In a November 6, 2019 opinion, Judge Parker granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to enforce the settlement agreement as to the operation of the IQR and declare reviewer qualified. The defendants' motion for injunctive relief regarding the actions of the community monitor were denied as moot. 2019 WL 5789243.
On April 5, 2020, Judge Parker issued an opinion on the Defendant's motion from December 2013 to disengage a paragraph of the settlement agreement. The Defendants contended that they had substantially complied with the agreement and therefore asked the court to terminate its oversight of those activities. In his opinion, Judge Parker found that the defendants had shown substantial compliance, as evidenced by the Defendants' scores on their quality assurance reviews, and he granted the motion. 2020 WL 1676648.
In January of 2020, the defendants filed a motion to disengage another paragraph pertaining to the timeliness and adequacy of mortality reviews of death. The defendants again argued that they were in substantial compliance with the provision and asked the court to terminate its oversight of the activities. On May 19, 2020, Judge Parker issued an opinion that denied defendants' motion to disengage the provision. The defendants had said that an annual report meeting would occur in the near future, and this meeting would review the Mortality Review Committees (MCR) recommendations for systemic change. Judge Parker explained that this meeting is a required step of the settlement agreement, and a planned future event does not show substantial compliance with the settlement agreement. On those grounds, the court denied the defendants' motion. 2020 WL 2542021.
As of July 2020, the court retains jurisdiction over enforcement of the settlement agreement, and the case remains open.
Summary Authors
Dan Dalton (4/18/2007)
Alex Colbert-Taylor (6/10/2013)
Jessica Kincaid (3/18/2016)
Sam Kulhanek (11/8/2018)
Sabrina Glavota (7/11/2020)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4312872/parties/jackson-v-fort-stanton-hosp/
Beyer, Roberta (New Mexico)
Biderman, Paul L. (New Mexico)
Becker, Robert W. (New Mexico)
Allen, Patrick D. (New Mexico)
Bergman, Barbara (New Mexico)
Biderman, Paul L. (New Mexico)
Cook, Timothy M. (Pennsylvania)
Costanzo, Cathy E. (Massachusetts)
Hanson, Robert E. (New Mexico)
Koenigsberg, Nancy (New Mexico)
Laski, Frank J. (Pennsylvania)
McCartney, Ann Tilford (New Mexico)
Miller, V. Collen (New Mexico)
Ohline, Beverly Sorensen (New Mexico)
Schwartz, Steven J. (Massachusetts)
Shapiro, Daniel W. (New Mexico)
Sims, Ann Tilford (New Mexico)
Becker, Robert W. (New Mexico)
Biehler, Gregory L. (New Mexico)
Booms, Robert Tabor (New Mexico)
Brown, Rebecca L. (District of Columbia)
Bustamante, Patricia E. (New Mexico)
Dickinson, Jerry A. (New Mexico)
Gran, Judith A. (Pennsylvania)
Jimenez, Billy J. (New Mexico)
Joseph, Andrea F. (New Mexico)
Klein, Joel I. (District of Columbia)
Kunkel, Kathyleen M. (New Mexico)
Madrid, Patricia A. (New Mexico)
Rahn, Taylor Sauer (New Mexico)
Salazar, Richard R. (New Mexico)
Schaefer, Beth W. (New Mexico)
Smith, Paul M. (District of Columbia)
Taylor, Nancy Alma (New Mexico)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4312872/jackson-v-fort-stanton-hosp/
Last updated Oct. 10, 2025, 10:01 p.m.
State / Territory: New Mexico
Case Type(s):
Intellectual Disability (Facility)
Special Collection(s):
Multi-LexSum (in sample)
Olmstead Cases
Key Dates
Filing Date: July 8, 1987
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
All persons who resided at Fort Stanton Hospital and Training School and Los Lunas Hospital and Training School and those who would become residents during the pendency of the action, and all persons who had been transferred from these two institutions to other state facilities.
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
Fort Stanton Hospital & Training School, State
Los Lunas Hospital and Training School (Los Lunas), 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
Constitutional Clause(s):
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Content of Injunction:
Follow recruitment, hiring, or promotion protocols
Provide antidiscrimination training
Goals (e.g., for hiring, admissions)
Issues
General/Misc.:
Incident/accident reporting & investigations
Reassessment and care planning
Staff (number, training, qualifications, wages)
Disability and Disability Rights:
Developmental disability without intellectual disability
Intellectual/developmental disability, unspecified
Discrimination Area:
Discrimination Basis:
Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)
Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:
Deinstitutionalization/decarceration
Habilitation (training/treatment)
Medical/Mental Health Care: