Case: U.S. v. Oklahoma

4:06-cv-00673 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma

Filed Date: Dec. 15, 2006

Closed Date: 2011

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On December 15, 2006, the United States filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the state of Oklahoma and its' officials and subgroups responsible for operation of the L.E. Rader Center ("Rader") juvenile detention facility. The complaint, as amended on May 4, 2007, alleged that the defendants (1) denied Rader's residents their rights to protection from harm from staff, from other residents, and from i…

On December 15, 2006, the United States filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the state of Oklahoma and its' officials and subgroups responsible for operation of the L.E. Rader Center ("Rader") juvenile detention facility. The complaint, as amended on May 4, 2007, alleged that the defendants (1) denied Rader's residents their rights to protection from harm from staff, from other residents, and from improper administration of psychotropic drugs; (2) provided inadequate mental health care at Rader, particularly as to screening, assessment, treatment and transition planning, and psychiatric and psychological services; and (3) failed to provide required special education services to qualifying Rader residents. Represented by Department of Justice Civil Rights Division attorneys, the federal government initiated the action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 14141, the pattern or practice provision of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The amended complaint alleged that the state defendants' conduct violated the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and related regulations, and the Individuals with Disabilities Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1401.

The case, assigned to District Judge Gregory K. Frizzell, prompted motion and discovery practice resulting in several June 2007, unpublished orders by Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy. These addressed matters such as protective orders to keep disclosed information about residents confidential; scheduling of on-site inspections at Rader by plaintiffs' counsel and expert consultants; who would bear the cost of security escorts during the visits (the United States, said the magistrate); and whether interviews conducted during the visits would have to be recorded (they would).

In June 2008, a settlement was reached and on September 9, 2008, the court (Judge Frizzell) entered an order incorporating the consent decree. The case was terminated at this time. The consent decree included resolutions to protect juvenile residents from harm, prevention of suicide and self-harm, mental health care, and special education claims, and was set to expire three years from the date it was signed.

In September 2011, a little over a week before the consent decree was set to expire, the plaintiffs filed an emergency motion to modify the decree. The plaintiffs alleged that since Rader was closed by the state in 2011, there had been several incidents at two "replacement" facilities. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had not given them full access to investigate the incidents. The plaintiffs wanted the consent decree modified to extend to these other facilities so that the incidents could be investigated with the support of the court. The defendants objected, arguing that Rader was the only facility under the order and that the two facilities are not replacements as defined in the consent decree. The court agreed with the defendants, finding that the separate, pre-existing juvenile centers were not replacements under the terms of the consent decree. Defendants then filed a Motion to Dismiss, citing the expiration of the consent decree, which the court granted on November 18, 2011.

Summary Authors

Elizabeth Daligga (7/27/2012)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4682544/parties/united-states-v-oklahoma-state-of/


Judge(s)

Frizzell, Gregory Kent (Oklahoma)

McCarthy, Frank H. (Oklahoma)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Acosta, R. Alexander (District of Columbia)

Baker, Wyn D. (Oklahoma)

Becker, Grace Chung (District of Columbia)

Brown Cutlar, Shanetta Y. (District of Columbia)

Coon, Laura (District of Columbia)

Donnelly, Matthew J. (District of Columbia)

Glasse, Fortune A. (District of Columbia)

Grigsby, Stacey Kamya (District of Columbia)

Judge(s)

Frizzell, Gregory Kent (Oklahoma)

McCarthy, Frank H. (Oklahoma)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Acosta, R. Alexander (District of Columbia)

Baker, Wyn D. (Oklahoma)

Becker, Grace Chung (District of Columbia)

Brown Cutlar, Shanetta Y. (District of Columbia)

Coon, Laura (District of Columbia)

Donnelly, Matthew J. (District of Columbia)

Glasse, Fortune A. (District of Columbia)

Grigsby, Stacey Kamya (District of Columbia)

Jung, Je Yon (District of Columbia)

Kim, Wan J. (District of Columbia)

McDuffie, Kenyan (District of Columbia)

Myrthil, Marlysha (District of Columbia)

O'Meilia, David E. (Oklahoma)

Preston, Judith (Judy) C. (District of Columbia)

Simons, Shaheena Ahmad (California)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Gruber, Thomas W. (Oklahoma)

Jones, Kindanne C. (Oklahoma)

Mann, Richard Neal (Oklahoma)

Tsiakilos, Jill Christine (Oklahoma)

Weitman, M. Daniel (Oklahoma)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

Docket (PACER)

United States v. Oklahoma

Nov. 18, 2011 Docket

Re: Investigation of the L.E. Rader Center, Sand Springs, Oklahoma

CRIPA Investigation of the L.E. Rader Center

No Court

June 8, 2005 Findings Letter/Report
2

Complaint

US v. Oklahoma

Dec. 15, 2006 Complaint
65

Amended Complaint

May 4, 2007 Complaint
74

Order

2007 WL 1662770

June 4, 2007 Order/Opinion
75

Protective Order

June 4, 2007 Order/Opinion
89

Order

June 22, 2007 Order/Opinion
99

United States' Motion for Preliminary Injunction

US v. Oklahoma

Aug. 15, 2007 Pleading / Motion / Brief
258

Consent Decree

US v. Oklahoma

Sept. 9, 2008 Settlement Agreement
259

Administrative Closing Order

US v. Oklahoma

Sept. 10, 2008 Order/Opinion

Resources

Title Description External URL

The Caged Canary

Elizabeth Alexander

The United States has experienced an explosion in the number of people in prison, an explosion that cannot be attributed to changes in the crime rate, but rather reflects changes in public policy, pa… Dec. 1, 2008 http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/...

Review of the Use of Monitors in Civil Settlement Agreements and Consent Decrees Involving State and Local Government Entities

Attorney General Merrick Garland and Assoc. AG Vanita Gupta

Today, the Justice Department will begin implementing a set of principles and specific recommendations regarding the use ofmonitors in civil settlement agreements and consent decrees involving state … Sept. 13, 2021 https://www.justice.gov/...

Policing the Police: The Impact of "Pattern-or-Practice" Investigations on Crime

Tanaya Devi, Roland G. Fryer Jr

This paper provides the first empirical examination of the impact of federal and state "Pattern-or Practice" investigations on crime and policing. For investigations that were not preceded by "viral"… June 1, 2020 None

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4682544/united-states-v-oklahoma-state-of/

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

ECF Number Description Date Link
40

OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H McCarthy, granting 34 Motion to Accelerate/Extend/Reset Hearing(s)/Deadline(s), setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s): Plaintiff's production of documents, Miscellaneous Deadline set for 4/2/2007 (FHM1, Chambers)

March 22, 2007 RECAP
74

OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H McCarthy ; granting in part and denying in part 44 Motion for Protective Order; granting in part and denying in part 45 Motion for Protective Order (FHM1, Chambers)

June 4, 2007 RECAP
258

OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Gregory K Frizzell (CONSENT DECREE) (Re: 257 Order, Ruling on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, 256 Joint MOTION FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT DECREE (renewed)Joint MOTION FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT DECREE (renewed) ) (hbo, Dpty Clk)

Sept. 9, 2008 RECAP
271

OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Gregory K Frizzell ; adding party Mary Fallin, T Hastings Siegfried and Cathy Olberding terminating party Lonelia L Simmons, Brad Henry and Jimmy Martin ; denying 260 Motion to Enforce; denying 261 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief (hbo, Dpty Clk)

Sept. 21, 2011 RECAP

State / Territory: Oklahoma

Case Type(s):

Juvenile Institution

Key Dates

Filing Date: Dec. 15, 2006

Closing Date: 2011

Case Ongoing: No

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

Oklahoma Office of Juvenile Affairs, State

Oklahoma Board of Juvenile Affairs, State

State of Oklahoma, State

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Indv. w/ Disab. Educ. Act (IDEA), Educ. of All Handcpd. Children Act , 20 U.S.C. § 1400

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

34 U.S.C. § 12601 (previously 42 U.S.C. § 14141)

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Order Duration: 2008 - 2011

Content of Injunction:

Monitor/Master

Monitoring

Reporting

Issues

General:

Assault/abuse by residents/inmates/students

Assault/abuse by staff

Juveniles

Personal injury

Sexual abuse by residents/inmates

Sex w/ staff; sexual harassment by staff

Special education

Suicide prevention

Affected Gender:

Female

Male

Medical/Mental Health:

Medication, administration of

Mental health care, general

Suicide prevention

Type of Facility:

Government-run