Case: Jackson v. Fort Stanton Hospital & Training School

1:87-cv-00839 | U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico

Filed Date: July 8, 1987

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

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 …

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)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4312872/parties/jackson-v-fort-stanton-hosp/


Judge(s)

Molzen, Karen Ballard (New Mexico)

Parker, James Aubrey (New Mexico)

Tacha, Deanell Reece (Kansas)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Beyer, Roberta (New Mexico)

Biderman, Paul L. (New Mexico)

Cook, Timothy M. (Pennsylvania)

Costanzo, Cathy E. (Massachusetts)

Cubra, Peter (New Mexico)

Davis, Philip B. (New Mexico)

Drucker, Dennis (New Mexico)

Judge(s)

Molzen, Karen Ballard (New Mexico)

Parker, James Aubrey (New Mexico)

Tacha, Deanell Reece (Kansas)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Beyer, Roberta (New Mexico)

Biderman, Paul L. (New Mexico)

Cook, Timothy M. (Pennsylvania)

Costanzo, Cathy E. (Massachusetts)

Cubra, Peter (New Mexico)

Davis, Philip B. (New Mexico)

Drucker, Dennis (New Mexico)

Eby, Lynn C. (New Mexico)

Foster, Marlene (New Mexico)

Gardner, Tim (New Mexico)

Gomez, Sandra L. (New Mexico)

Hanson, Robert E. (New Mexico)

Harvey, Ann M. (Nebraska)

Jiron, Becky S. (New Mexico)

Koenigsberg, Nancy (New Mexico)

Laski, Frank J. (Pennsylvania)

Levy, Robert M. (New York)

McCartney, Ann Tilford (New Mexico)

Miller, V. Collen (New Mexico)

Ohline, Beverly Sorensen (New Mexico)

Poulin, Debra D. (New Mexico)

Schwartz, Steven J. (Massachusetts)

Shapiro, Daniel W. (New Mexico)

Sims, Ann Tilford (New Mexico)

Sylvest, Flynn Evelyn (New Mexico)

Winchester, Kent (New Mexico)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

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)

Clough, John H. (New Mexico)

Cohn, Bennett S. (New Mexico)

Coppin, Chris (New Mexico)

Dickinson, Jerry A. (New Mexico)

Gran, Judith A. (Pennsylvania)

Grubel, James J. (New Mexico)

Harris, Josh A. (New Mexico)

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)

Malave, Sally (New Mexico)

Park, Alfred A. (New Mexico)

Rahn, Taylor Sauer (New Mexico)

Reed, Judith E. (New Mexico)

Ritzma, Paul R. (New Mexico)

Salazar, Richard R. (New Mexico)

Schaefer, Beth W. (New Mexico)

Smith, Paul M. (District of Columbia)

Stone, Jennifer (New Mexico)

Stratton, Hal (New Mexico)

Sullivan, Susan (New Mexico)

Taylor, Nancy Alma (New Mexico)

Thalley, Corliss G. (New Mexico)

Udall, Tom (New Mexico)

Walz, Jerry A. (New Mexico)

Woodward, Christopher D. (New Mexico)

Other Attorney(s)

Allen, Patrick D. (New Mexico)

Church, Elizabeth (New Mexico)

Salvador, Vernon W. (New Mexico)

Sanchez, Michael S (New Mexico)

Sanders, Maureen (New Mexico)

Expert/Monitor/Master

Bergman, Barbara (New Mexico)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

Docket (PACER)

Jackson v. Fort Stanton Hospital

June 27, 2020 Docket
1

Class Action Complaint

July 8, 1987 Complaint
238

Fourth Amended Complaint by Interlineation

Oct. 13, 1988 Complaint
679

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Jackson v. Fort Stanton Hospital and Training School

757 F.Supp. 1243

Dec. 28, 1990 Order/Opinion
678

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Jackson v. Fort Stanton Hospital and Training School

757 F.Supp. 1231

Dec. 28, 1990 Order/Opinion

Opinion

Jackson v. Fort Stanton Hospital and Training School

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

964 F.2d 980

May 18, 1992 Order/Opinion
831

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Jackson v. Fort Stanton Hospital and Training School

Jan. 27, 1994 Order/Opinion
1132

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Jackson v. Los Lunas Center for Persons with Development Disabilities, et al.

Sept. 7, 1999 Order/Opinion
1198

Order

Jackson v. Los Lunas Center for Persons with Development Disabilities

June 13, 2000 Order/Opinion
1390

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Jackson v. Los Lunas Center for Persons with Development

Feb. 26, 2003 Order/Opinion

Resources

Title Description External URL

Deinstitutionalization Nationwide

Public Interest Law Center

In partnership with the advocacy organization Supporters of Developmentally Disabled New Mexicans, we filed a lawsuit in 1987 seeking to close two large, state-run institutions in New Mexico housing … Dec. 28, 1990 https://www.pubintlaw.org/cases-and-projects/deinstitutionalization-nationwide-new-mexico/

Autism Spectrum Disorder Policymaking in New Mexico: An Ethnographic Case Study

Elisheva H. Levin

Understanding how ASD policy is made at the state level is important to the various institutional and individual stakeholders who make, apply, and are governed by it. Critical disability theory was a… Jan. 1, 2017

Jackson v. Fort Stanton Hospital and Training School

Center for Public Representation

Class action on behalf of 1500 residents of New Mexico’s two institutions for persons with developmental disabilities. After a lengthy trial, the Court issues a 202 page decision in 1990 finding viol… June 21, 2019 https://www.centerforpublicrep.org/court_case/jackson-v-fort-stanton-hospital-and-training-school/

Jackson's Legacy

Alexa Schirtzinger

In October 1985, a developmentally disabled man in his late 20s drank a cup of oven cleaner. Despite severe burns, he survived. He also unwittingly kicked off one of the longest lawsuits in the histo… https://www.sfreporter.com/news/coverstories/2010/02/24/jacksons-legacy/

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4312872/jackson-v-fort-stanton-hosp/

Last updated May 12, 2022, 8 p.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link
1132

MEMORANDUM, OPINION, AND ORDER: by Judge James A. Parker denying motion for relief from judgment pursuant to FRCP 60(b)(5) and request for expedited oral argument [1101-1] by Fort Stanton Hosp, Los Lunas Center (cc: all counsel, electronically) (jrm)

Sept. 7, 1999 RECAP
1287

MEMORANDUM, OPINION, AND ORDER: by Chief Judge James A. Parker overruling defts' motion for order re: objections to the protective order entered by Magistrate Judge Leslie C Smith on 4/9/01 and mtn for consideration of the Order of 9/7/00 [1268-1]; and denying motion for reconsideration of the Order of 9/7/00 [1266-2] by Fort Stanton Hosp, Los Lunas Center (cc: all counsel*) (jrm)

Aug. 7, 2001 RECAP
1390

MEMORANDUM, OPINION, AND ORDER: by Chief Judge James A. Parker denying defts' mtn [1380-1] w/respect to paragraph 36, part (e) as it applies to the Southeast Region (cc: all counsel*) (jrm)

Feb. 26, 2003 RECAP
1680

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by District Judge James A. Parker denying Plaintiff/Intervenor Marjorie M. Clingenpeel's motion to withdraw as Class Member 1661 and as further described herein. (jrm)

Aug. 28, 2009 RECAP
1814

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Karen B. Molzen granting in part and denying in part 1795 Defendants' Motion to Compel. (KBM)

Feb. 28, 2011 RECAP
1897

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by District Judge James A. Parker that Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' pleading entitled Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law Regarding whether all remaining obligations of the case should be terminated [Doc. 1883] (Doc.No. 1890) is denied & as further described herein. (jrm)

Dec. 14, 2011 RECAP
1911

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by District Judge James A. Parker as described herein 1898 , 1905 (jrm)

Feb. 16, 2012 RECAP
1930

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER by District Judge James A. Parker 1841 , 1842 , 1843 as further described herein.. (jrm) Modified text on 10/12/2012 (jrm).

Oct. 12, 2012 RECAP
1947

ORDER OF RECUSAL by Chief Magistrate Judge Karen B. Molzen. (KBM)

Feb. 5, 2013 RECAP
1996

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by District Judge James A. Parker (Attachments: # 1 Table I, # 2 Table II, # 3 Table III)(bap)

1 Appendix Table I

View on PACER

2 Appendix Table II

View on PACER

3 Appendix Table III

View on PACER

Sept. 11, 2014 RECAP
1999

ORDER OF RECUSAL by Magistrate Judge Karen B. Molzen. (KBM)

Sept. 24, 2014 RECAP
2030

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying defendants' 2003 Opposed MOTION for Partial Disengagement Seeking Disengagement of Appendix A-DVR re 2002 Order on Motion to Extend (other) . Related document(s): 2003 Opposed MOTION for Partial Disengagement Seeking Disengagement of Appendix A-DVR re 2002 Order on Motion to Extend (other) . by District Judge James A. Parker (bap)

Feb. 18, 2015 RECAP
2032

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by District Judge James A. Parker DENYING, without prejudice Defendants' 2003 Opposed MOTION for Partial Disengagement of the 1998 Audit Recommendations Numbers 6, 8, 12, 15, 16 (a,e and f), 19 and 24 (Attachments: # 1 Table 1)(bap)

1 Exhibit Table 1

View on PACER

March 19, 2015 RECAP
2035

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by District Judge James A. Parker. See Order for further details. (Attachments: # 1 Final Evaluative - Table IV)(kg)

1 Final Evaluative - Table IV

View on PACER

April 3, 2015 RECAP
2079

NOTICE by Dept. of Vocational Rehab for the State of New Mexico, Fort Stanton Hospital and Training School, Los Lunas Center for Persons with Developmental Disabilities, New Mexico Human Services Department Jackson Quarterly Report for January 15, 2016 (Walz, Jerry) (Entered: 01/15/2016)

Jan. 15, 2016 RECAP
2080

JCA's 01/21/2016 DETERMINATION re: Disengagement Criteria Objective S.1.1.1. (KBM) (Entered: 01/25/2016)

Jan. 25, 2016 PACER
2083

Clerk's Minutes for proceedings held before Chief Magistrate Judge Karen B. Molzen: Quarterly Meeting held on 2/4/2016. (am) (Entered: 02/09/2016)

Feb. 9, 2016 PACER
2084

ORDER by Chief Magistrate Judge Karen B. Molzen setting a Quarterly Meeting for 4/28/2016 at 09:00 AM in Albuquerque - 560 Cimarron Courtroom before Chief Magistrate Judge Karen B. Molzen. [THIS IS A TEXT-ONLY ENTRY. NO DOCUMENTS ARE ATTACHED.](am) (Entered: 02/09/2016)

Feb. 9, 2016 PACER
2094

STIPULATED ORDER on Procedure for Extending Timelines by Senior District Judge James A. Parker. (bap) (Entered: 02/11/2016)

Feb. 11, 2016 PACER
2095

STIPULATED ORDER for Disengagement of Objective S1.1.1 by Senior District Judge James A. Parker. (bap) (Entered: 02/11/2016)

Feb. 11, 2016 PACER
2101

NOTICE by Dept. of Vocational Rehab for the State of New Mexico, Fort Stanton Hospital and Training School, Los Lunas Center for Persons with Developmental Disabilities, New Mexico Human Services Department Jackson Quarterly Report for April 15, 2016 (Walz, Jerry) (Entered: 04/15/2016)

April 15, 2016 PACER
2102

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Senior District Judge James A. Parker denying 2058 Opposed MOTION for Disengagement of Continuous Improvement Paragraphs 35c . (bap) (Entered: 04/27/2016)

April 27, 2016 RECAP
2103

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 2053 MOTION to Alter Judgment Defendants Verified Rule 60(b)(5) Motion and Supporting Memorandum to Terminate all Remaining Orders in Jackson et al. v. FSH&TS et al by District Judge James A. Parker. (vv)

June 14, 2016 RECAP
2204

In Limine

May 14, 2018 PACER
2205

Errata

1 Exhibit A

View on PACER

May 15, 2018 PACER
2223

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Karen B. Molzen on Discovery Dispute on Rule 60(b) Motion. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Cubra Letter of 07-13-2018, # 2 Exhibit Walz Letter of 07-20-2018, # 3 Exhibit Cubra Reply Letter) (KBM)

1 Exhibit Cubra Letter of 07-13-2018

View on PACER

2 Exhibit Walz Letter of 07-20-2018

View on PACER

3 Exhibit Cubra Reply Letter

View on PACER

July 26, 2018 RECAP
2240

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Karen B. Molzen following 2233 Discovery Hearing and letter briefs. Defendants may produce the databases in an anonymized format as long as they include a reliable indication of disability level for each individual. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Costanzo Letter of August 28, 2018, # 2 Supplement Grubel Letter of August 30, 2018) (KBM)

1 Supplement Costanzo Letter of August 28, 2018

View on PACER

2 Supplement Grubel Letter of August 30, 2018

View on PACER

Aug. 31, 2018 RECAP
2255

STIPULATION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Karen B. Molzen extending discovery deadlines and setting forth Court's rulings from October 9, 2018 hearing on discovery disputes. (KBM)

Oct. 12, 2018 RECAP
2284

Order on Motion to Clarify

March 13, 2019 PACER

1 - Terminate Hearings

March 13, 2019 PACER

Order

March 13, 2019 PACER

~Util - Set Hearings

March 15, 2019 PACER

Order

March 15, 2019 PACER
2286

Amend/Correct

March 25, 2019 PACER
2287

Order

March 28, 2019 PACER
2288

Settlement Conference

April 17, 2019 PACER
2289

Approve Settlement

1 Exhibit A

View on PACER

2 Exhibit B

View on PACER

April 17, 2019 PACER
2291

Motion Hearing

April 22, 2019 PACER
2292

Order

April 23, 2019 PACER

Order

April 23, 2019 PACER

1 - Terminate Hearings

April 23, 2019 PACER
2294

Order

April 24, 2019 PACER
2295

Settlement Conference Follow-up

May 2, 2019 PACER
2297

Order

May 24, 2019 PACER
2298

Transcript

May 29, 2019 PACER
2299

Approve Settlement

1 Exhibit Settlement Agreement

View on PACER

2 Exhibit Declaration

View on PACER

June 4, 2019 PACER
2300

Memorandum in Support

June 4, 2019 PACER
2303

Motion Hearing

June 21, 2019 PACER
2304

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Senior District Judge James A. Parker granting 2299 Parties Joint MOTION to Approve Settlement Agreement and Approves the Settlement Agreement as revised [2299-1]; and as further described herein. (bap)

June 21, 2019 RECAP

~Util - Set Hearings

July 1, 2019 PACER

Order

July 1, 2019 PACER
2312

Response (when not to a motion)

Aug. 8, 2019 PACER

Minute Order

Aug. 22, 2019 PACER
2317

Certificate of Service

Oct. 2, 2019 PACER
2318

Preliminary Injunction

1 Exhibit A

View on PACER

2 Exhibit B

View on PACER

3 Exhibit C

View on PACER

4 Exhibit D

View on PACER

Oct. 3, 2019 PACER
2319

Order

1 Exhibit A

View on PACER

2 Exhibit B

View on PACER

3 Exhibit C

View on PACER

4 Exhibit D

View on PACER

5 Exhibit E

View on PACER

Oct. 3, 2019 PACER
2321

Order

1 Exhibit A

View on PACER

2 Exhibit B

View on PACER

Oct. 8, 2019 PACER
2322

Order on Motion for Order

Oct. 9, 2019 PACER
2324

Status Conference

Oct. 10, 2019 PACER

~Util - Set Hearings

Oct. 10, 2019 PACER

Order

Oct. 10, 2019 PACER
2326

Response in Opposition to Motion

1 Exhibit

View on PACER

Oct. 21, 2019 PACER
2328

Reply to Response to Motion

Oct. 25, 2019 PACER

Minute Order

Oct. 28, 2019 PACER
2331

Response in Opposition to Motion

Oct. 30, 2019 PACER
2332

Certificate of Service

Nov. 6, 2019 PACER
2334

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Senior District Judge James A. Parker granting and denying in part 2319 Opposed MOTION for Order to Enforce the Settlement Agreement as to the Operation of the Individual Qualify Review and Declare Reviewer Qualified; and denying as moot 2318 Opposed MOTION for Injunctive Relief regarding Actions of Community Monitor. (bap)

Nov. 6, 2019 RECAP

Minute Order

Nov. 6, 2019 PACER
2335

Certificate of Service

Nov. 15, 2019 PACER
2336

Order

Nov. 15, 2019 PACER
2337

Certificate of Service

Nov. 18, 2019 PACER
2339

Order on Motion for Order

Dec. 4, 2019 PACER
2340

Order

Dec. 10, 2019 PACER
2341

Order on Motion for Order

Dec. 10, 2019 PACER
2342

Order

1 Exhibit A

View on PACER

2 Exhibit B

View on PACER

3 Exhibit C

View on PACER

4 Exhibit D

View on PACER

5 Exhibit E

View on PACER

6 Exhibit F

View on PACER

7 Exhibit G

View on PACER

8 Exhibit H

View on PACER

9 Exhibit I

View on PACER

10 Exhibit J

View on PACER

11 Exhibit K

View on PACER

Dec. 23, 2019 PACER
2343

Extension of Time to File Response/Reply

Jan. 3, 2020 PACER
2344

Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply

Jan. 9, 2020 PACER
2345

Settlement Conference

Jan. 13, 2020 PACER

~Util - Set Hearings

Jan. 14, 2020 PACER

Order

Jan. 14, 2020 PACER
2347

Mail Returned

Jan. 21, 2020 PACER
2348

Mail Returned

Jan. 21, 2020 PACER
2349

File Excess Pages

Jan. 23, 2020 PACER
2350

Order

Jan. 23, 2020 PACER
2351

Order on Motion for Order

Jan. 24, 2020 PACER
2352

Response in Opposition to Motion

1 Exhibit

View on PACER

2 Exhibit

View on PACER

3 Exhibit

View on PACER

4 Exhibit

View on PACER

Jan. 28, 2020 PACER
2354

Certificate of Service

Jan. 29, 2020 PACER
2355

Order on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages

Jan. 30, 2020 PACER
2357

Withdraw as Attorney

Jan. 31, 2020 PACER
2358

File Excess Pages

Feb. 10, 2020 PACER
2359

Extension of Time to File Response/Reply

Feb. 10, 2020 PACER
2360

Response in Opposition to Motion

Feb. 11, 2020 PACER
2361

Order on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages

Feb. 11, 2020 PACER
2362

Reply to Response to Motion

Feb. 12, 2020 PACER
2365

Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney

Feb. 12, 2020 PACER
2366

Extension of Time to File Response/Reply

Feb. 13, 2020 PACER
2367

Reply to Response to Motion

1 Exhibit A

View on PACER

2 Exhibit B

View on PACER

3 Appendix A

View on PACER

Feb. 18, 2020 PACER
2370

Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply

Feb. 19, 2020 PACER
2371

Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply

Feb. 19, 2020 PACER

Minute Order

Feb. 19, 2020 PACER

State / Territory: New Mexico

Case Type(s):

Intellectual Disability (Facility)

Special Collection(s):

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):

Private Plaintiff

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

New Mexico, State

Defendant Type(s):

Hospital/Health Department

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.

Section 504 (Rehabilitation Act), 29 U.S.C. § 701

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Non-settlement Outcome

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Litigation

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Content of Injunction:

Reasonable Accommodation

Follow recruitment, hiring, or promotion protocols

Provide antidiscrimination training

Reporting

Monitor/Master

Recordkeeping

Monitoring

Goals (e.g., for hiring, admissions)

Training

Issues

General:

Classification / placement

Conditions of confinement

Confinement/isolation

Deinstitutionalization/decarceration

Discharge & termination plans

Disparate Impact

Disparate Treatment

Failure to supervise

Failure to train

Habilitation (training/treatment)

Incident/accident reporting & investigations

Individualized planning

Pattern or Practice

Reassessment and care planning

Record-keeping

Restraints : physical

Staff (number, training, qualifications, wages)

Discrimination-basis:

Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)

Disability:

Integrated setting

Least restrictive environment

Mental impairment

Mental Disability:

Developmental disability without intellectual disability

Intellectual/developmental disability, unspecified

Medical/Mental Health:

Intellectual/Developmental Disability

Medical care, general

Medical care, unspecified

Type of Facility:

Government-run