Case: U.S. v. Texas (DOJ CRIPA lawsuit involving many State Schools)
1:09-cv-00490 | U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
Filed Date: June 26, 2009
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
On December 11, 2006, the U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division sent a "findings letter" to the governor of Texas, advising him of the results of its investigation into conditions and practices at the Lubbock State School ("LSS"), which housed people with developmental disabilities. The DOJ advised that its investigation found that conditions and services at LSS substantially departed from generally accepted standards of care.
The DOJ issued additional "findings letters" on December 1, 2008 regarding its investigation of additional State-Sponsored Living centers (SSLCs) for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (ID/DD) in Abilene, Austin, Benham, Corpus Christi, Denton, El Paso, Lufkin, Mexia, Richmond, San Angelo, and San Antonio, Texas. They identified significant deficiencies in care at these facilities and identified remedial measures to improve their care.
On June 26, 2009, the U.S. Attorney General filed suit against the state of Texas, the governor, the Texas Department of Aging and Disability, the Texas Department of State Health Services, and the superintendents of the thirteen state-operated facilities for people with ID/DD to whom it had issued findings letters. 2009 WL 2350318. The suit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997. The complaint claimed violations of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, Title XIX of the Social Security Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12132. It alleged that the facilities failed to provide its residents with reasonably safe conditions, adequate healthcare, adequate therapeutic or psychological services, or proper evaluation for placement in the most integrated settings. The A.G. sought injunctive relief to halt these unlawful practices and comply with the relevant laws.
On that same day, the parties filed a joint settlement agreement with the court regarding services provided for people with ID/DD in these facilities, as well as the transition of those individuals into the most integrated settings appropriate to their needs. 2009 WL 5053774. The settlement agreement included plans for improvement as well as ongoing monitoring and enforcement provisions. The agreement stated that the court would retain jurisdiction over the case for five years, provided the facilities had reached substantial compliance for at least one year. The case was assigned to Judge Sam Sparks.
Judge Sparks approved the parties' joint settlement agreement on June 27, 2009 and conditionally dismissed the suit subject to the appointment of monitors to evaluate ongoing efforts to comply with the agreement. Judge Sparks retained the court's jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement.
In January 2010, the monitors and expert consultants conducted baseline reviews of each facility. Beginning in July 2010, compliance reviews were completed every 6 months for each facility. This continued until 2015, with the exception of a three month period in 2013.
On October 11, 2012, Judge Sparks issued an order establishing parameters for the monitors and their communications with the Texas state legislature, allowing them to answer, decline, or postpone their responses to questions as they saw fit. It also allowed for counsel for the United States and the State of Texas and its relevant agencies to be present for these meetings between the monitors and legislature.
In January 2013, the parties agreed to delay the four-year report until June 2014. That same month, Judge Sparks approved the parties' request to postpone monitoring inspection dates to coincide with the postponement of the production of the four-year report.
In compliance with the deadline, the parties filed a joint report with the court by three monitors who had been visiting the facilities approximately every six months over the past four years on June 23, 2014. By the time the report was prepared, each facility had undergone seven compliance review visits. The monitors reported that the facilities made significant progress towards compliance with the agreement, but that it was unlikely that Texas would achieve substantial progress on most of the provisions any time soon. It noted that no facility was fully in compliance and that only 3 of the facilities had achieved substantial compliance with any substantive provision (e.g., minimum common elements of clinical care, protection from harm- restraints, etc.). They also made statewide recommendations for change across the centers. For example, it noted that system-wide action was sorely needed to decrease the use of restraints on patients for routine medical and dental care so that staff used restraints only when safe and appropriate. As an additional example, it noted that four facilities failed to timely report incidents and allegations of abuse and neglect within the facility and/or to law enforcement or protective services.
On August 29, 2014, the court granted the parties' joint motion to suspend late 2014 monitoring visits and set the next round of monitoring visits for 2015. In their motion requesting this order, the parties explained that they sought suspension of monitoring in order to restructure the monitoring approach to focus more directly on outcomes for individuals. They also provided recommendations for action across the state-supported living system.
The parties notified the court to agreed upon modifications to the monitoring framework moving forward on June 23, 2014. Over the course of the next three years, the parties negotiated an amended settlement agreement, reaching an agreement in June 2017. However, Texas sought additional changes after that, and so the parties reentered negotiations.
On September 1, 2021, the parties filed a joint motion to modify the settlement agreement (reflected in the court’s order of June 29, 2009) and continue the court’s retained jurisdiction. Specifically, the parties agreed to focus the State’s obligations more directly on improved outcomes for SSLC residents. On the same day, the case was reassigned to Judge Lee Yeakel. The court granted the parties’ joint motion to modify the settlement agreement on September 7, 2021.
On December 21, 2021, the monitors filed a motion for a protective order to protect their independent records and communications. This motion was based in part on the resignation of one of the two remaining monitors. In response, on September 23, 2022, the court ordered a status report due by October 24, 2022. On October 20, 2022, the parties submitted a joint status report regarding the monitor’s motion for a protective order. The parties agreed that the first monitor would turn over any documents in her possession, custody, and control related to this case to the second monitor. The parties also requested the court to enter an order denying the monitor’s motion for protective order as moot. On October 26, 2022, the court denied the motion’s monitor for protective order.
This case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Mike Fagan (5/30/2008)
Veronica Portillo Heap (10/5/2018)
Stephanie Chin (3/8/2023)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/48063175/parties/united-states-v-state-of-texas/
Becker, Grace Chung (District of Columbia)
Brown Cutlar, Shanetta Y. (District of Columbia)
Castillo, Daniel M (Texas)
Coles, Arethea (District of Columbia)
Abbott, Greg (Texas)
Becker, Grace Chung (District of Columbia)
Brown Cutlar, Shanetta Y. (District of Columbia)
Coles, Arethea (District of Columbia)
Dean, Kerry Krentler (District of Columbia)
Deerinwater, Verlin Hughes (District of Columbia)
Farano, Richard J. (District of Columbia)
Holder, Eric H. Jr. (District of Columbia)
Jansen, Regina (District of Columbia)
Kim, Wan J. (District of Columbia)
King, Loretta (District of Columbia)
Mazor, Marina (District of Columbia)
Noble-AUSA, Liane Ngin (Texas)
Smith, Jonathan Mark (District of Columbia)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/48063175/united-states-v-state-of-texas/
Last updated June 10, 2026, 12:17 p.m.
Docket for: United States v. State of Texas
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Intellectual Disability (Facility)
Healthcare Access and Reproductive Issues
Key Dates
Filing Date: June 26, 2009
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
U.S. Department of Justice
Plaintiff Type(s):
U.S. Dept of Justice plaintiff
Attorney Organizations:
U.S. Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
State
Texas Department of Aging and Disability Service
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997 et seq.
Other Dockets:
Western District of Texas 1:09-cv-00490
Special Case Type(s):
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Granted:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Food service / nutrition / hydration
Incident/accident reporting & investigations
Reassessment and care planning
Staff (number, training, qualifications, wages)
Disability and Disability Rights:
Intellectual/developmental disability, unspecified
Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:
Assault/abuse by staff (facilities)
Habilitation (training/treatment)
Medical/Mental Health Care:
Case Summary of U.S. v. Texas (DOJ CRIPA lawsuit involving many State Schools), Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/9657/ (last updated 3/8/2023).