United States District Court, M.D. Alabama,
Northern Division. ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY
PROGRAM, Plaintiff, v.
J. Walter WOOD, Jr., in his official capacity as Executive Director of the Alabama Department of
Youth Services, Defendant. Civil Action No. 2:07cv434-MHT.
Sept. 10, 2008.
Background: Disabilities advocacy program brought suit against director of Alabama Department of Youth Services (DYS) seeking access to residents, facilities, staff and records under federal law. Parties filed joint motion seeking court approval of settlement.
Holdings: The District Court, Myron H. Thompson, J., held that: (1) limitations under Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) on prospective relief concerning prison conditions had no application; (2) advocacy group was not subject to limitations on prisoner suits under PLRA; and (3) settlement would be approved.
Ordered accordingly.
*1315 James Arnold Tucker, Nancy Ellen Anderson, James Patrick Hackney, Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program, Tuscaloosa, AL, for Plaintiff.
Sancha O. Epiphane, Thornton Dudley Perry, Jr., Alabama Department of Youth Services, Mt. Meigs, AL, for Defendant.
OPINION
MYRON H. THOMPSON, District Judge.
On May 16, 2007, plaintiff Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program (ADAP) filed a complaint against defendant J. Walter Wood in his official capacity as Executive Director of the Alabama Department of Youth Services (DYS). The complaint alleged that DYS engaged in a “pattern and practice” of denying ADAP “access to DYS residents, facilities, facility

staff, and records.” Complaint (Doc. No. 1), 1. This denial allegedly prevented ADAP from “fully exercising the monitoring and investigatory mandates” authorized to it under the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 10801 et seq., the Developmental Disabilities and Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. §§ 15001 et seq., and the Protection and Advocacy of Individual Rights Program, 29 U.S.C. §§ 794e et seq. Complaint (Doc. No. 1), 2. Jurisdiction over ADAP's claim is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
The parties in this case have reached a settlement, and the matter is currently before the court on the parties' joint motion for approval of the settlement agreement and retention of jurisdiction. Having determined that the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3626, does not apply in this case, and approving of the terms of the settlement agreement, the court now grants the motion.
The PLRA limits the relief that may be granted in prison litigation cases. The Act can be divided into two broad categories: prospective-relief provisions and provisions regarding suits by prisoners. The prospective-relief provisions establish limitations and guidelines concerning the remedies a court may grant in civil actions seeking prospective relief concerning “prison conditions.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626. *1316 The provisions addressing suits by prisoners establish an exhaustion requirement. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e. The court concludes that neither of these categories applies here.
[1] The prospective-relief provisions of the PLRA do not apply because this action does not concern “prison conditions.” The PLRA defines “civil action with respect to prison conditions” as “any civil proceeding arising under federal law with respect to the conditions of confinement or the effects of actions by government officials on the lives of persons confined in prison.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(g)(2). In the matter at hand, ADAP seeks to enforce its own right of access under federal law and brings no claim concerning the conditions at DYS or the lives of persons confined there. Therefore, the prospectiverelief provisions of the PLRA do not apply.
[2] The provisions respecting prisoner suits also do not apply because ADAP is clearly not a “prisoner”

under the statute. The PLRA defines “prisoner” as “any person incarcerated or detained in any facility.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e. As ADAP is not a “person” and has neither been incarcerated nor detained, the prisoner-litigation sections of the PLRA do not apply.
[3] Although the limitations of the PLRA do not apply here, the court will, nevertheless, review the settlement agreement because the parties have jointly asked the court to approve it. The settlement agreement addresses three principal issues. First, it contains a detailed plan for facilitating ADAP's access to students in the custody of DYS and to DYS facilities, employees and records. Second, it contains a process for dispute resolution between the parties. Finally, it provides that this court shall retain jurisdiction of this case for a period of one year for the limited purpose of enforcing the parties' compliance with the agreement. The court finds this settlement agreement to be fair, adequate, reasonable and not illegal or against public policy. The settlement warrants court approval.
* * *
For the above reasons, and having reviewed and approved the terms of the settlement agreement, the court will grant the joint motion for approval of the settlement agreement and retention of jurisdiction. An appropriate judgement will be entered.
M.D.Ala.,2008. Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program v. Wood 584 F.Supp.2d 1314
END OF DOCUMENT

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT R'" F r:r,::=l\q= O.
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA """" ..... ,.,'. " ,~=.~

ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY)

PROGRAM,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)
J. WALTER WOOD, JR. in his official )

Capacity as Executive Director of the

)

Alabama Department of Youth Services, )

)

Defendant.

)

ZODl Y I b P ]: 3LI
COMPLAINT
Q'l . Civil Action No. ~-. CV· 43l\-Mtr

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. The Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program ("ADAP") is a nonprofit organization

authorized by Congress to protect and advocate for the civil rights of persons with disabilities

in Alabama. This complaint is related to a similar complaint filed in this Court less than two

years ago (Case 2:05-cv-Ol030-MHT), in which ADAP sought injunctive and dedaratory

relief against the Alabama Department of Youth Services ("DYS") for refusing to provide

full access to ADAP's client, J.P., her records, DYS staff and other residents for the purposes

of investigating allegations that IP. was physically abused, mechanically restrained, and

denied psychiatric medication by DYS staff. Subsequently, the parties were ordered to

mediation, ADAP obtained access, and the case was voluntarily dismissed on May-2, 2006.

See Exhibits AI-A3.

2. Since the dismissal of the 2005 complaint, DYS has engaged in a pattern and practice of

refusing to provide ADAP with access to DYS residents, facilities, facility staff, and records,

preventing ADAP from fully exercising the monitoring and investigatory ma:n.dates

authorized to it under federal law.

3. ADAP brings this action against J. Walter Wood, Jr., in his official capacity as Executive Director of DYS, pursuant to the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act of 1986 ("PAlMI Act"), 42 U.S.c. §§ 10SOlet seq., and its implementing regulations at 42 C.P.R. §§ 51.1 et seq.; the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000 ("PADD Act"), 42 U.S,C. §§ 15001 etseq., and its implementing regulations at 45 C.P.R. §§ 1385 et seq.; the Protection and Advocacy of Individual Rights Program ("PAIR Act"), 29 U.S.c., §§ 794e, et seq., and its implementing regulations at 34 C.ER §§ 381.1 et seq.; and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
4. ADAP seeks a pennanent injunction preventing 1. Walter Wood, Jr. and aU agents of Mr.
Wood from denying ADAP, as authorized by its federal enabling statutes and regulations, full, complete, timely access to DYS residents, facilities and facility staff as well as full, complete, timely access to records. In particular, Defendant has denied ADAP its federal statutory right under the PAlMI, PADD and PAIR Acts to:
a. reasonable unaccompanied access, for monitoring and investigatory purposes, to public
and plivate areas ofDYS facilities, in violation of 42 C.F.R. § 51.42(b); 42 C.F.R. § 51.42 (c); 45 C.P.R. § 1386.22{f); and 45 C.F.R. § 1386.22(g); b. interview residents, staff and other persons as part ofan abuse (lnd neglect investigation when ADAP had probable cause to believe an incident had occurred, in violation of 42 C.F.R. § 5L42(b); c. provide infonnation and training on individual rights and services provided by the P&A system, in violation of 42 C.F.R. § 51.42 (0) and 45 C.F.R § 1386.22(g); d. communicate privately with facility residents, in violation of 42 C.F.R § 51.42 (d) .and 45 c'F.R. § 1386.22(h);
2

e. access to facility incident reports and investigatory findings, in violation of42 C.F.R. § 51.41(c)(2); and
f. access to records offacility residents, in violation of42 C.P.R. § 51.41 and 45 C.P.R. § 1386.22. JURISDICTION
5. Jurisdiction in this court is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 6. Venue is proper in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Defendant resides in
Montgomery County, Alabama. Ala. Code 1975 § 44-1-20 ("The principal offices of the department [of youth services] shall be located at the state capitaL")
PARTIES 7. Plaintiff ADAP is a nonprofit organization in the state of Alabama authorized by
Congressional mandate to protect and advocate for the civil rights of persons with disabilities in Alabama. Plaintiff spends Significant time and resources conducting federally authorized monitoring activities at DYS facilities like ChalkvilIe, Vacca, and Mt. Meigs, and advocating for the rights of individuals residing in those faCilities. ADAP is charged with the duty of investigating complaints of abuse and neglect of residents of facilities like ChalkvilIe, Vacca, and Mt. Meigs under Congressional mandate pursuant to the PAlMI, PADDand PAIR Acts. ADAP files this complaint in its own name to redress injuries to itself and on behalf of its clients. 8. Defendant J. Walter Wood, Jr., is the Executive Director of DYS. DYS is the agency in the state of Alabama established to "promote and safeguard the social wel1~beingand general welfare of the youth of the state through a comprehensive and coordinated program ofpublic
3

services for the prevention of juvenile delinquency and the rehabilitation of delinquent youth." Ala. Code 1975 § 44-1-1.
STATEMENT OF FACTS ADAP's Access authority 9. In 1975, the PADD Act established the Protections and Advocacy ("P&A") System to investigate incidents of abuse and neglect and to pursue legal, administrative and other appropriate remedies to safeguard the rights of individuals with developmental disabilities. Congress extended the protection and advocacy mandate to cover individuals With mental illness with the enactment of the PAlMI Act in 1986. The scope of the P&A system was
further expanded in 1993 when the PAIR Act was ellacted.
10. To receive federal funding under the PAlMI, PADD and PAIR Acts, states must have in effect a P&A system. ADAP is designated as Alabama's P&A system. The PADD,PAIMI and PAIR Acts, along with their implementing regulations, authorize ADAP to investigate incidents of abuse and neglect and to pursue legal, administrative, and other appropriate remedies to ensure that the rights of persons with physical, mental and cognitive disabilities are protected - whether those persons live in facilities or in the community. 42 U.S.C. §
15043; 42 U.S.C. § 10805; 29 U.S.c. § 794e (a) and (t). See also, Alabama Disabilities
Advocacy Program v. 1.S. Tarwater Developmental Ctr.. 97 F.3d 492 (11th Cir. 1996). 11. Under the PAlMI Act, "any public or private residential setting that provides overnight care
accompanied by treatment services" is a facility which a P&A is authorized to access and monitor.
Facilities include, but are not limited to the following: General and psychiatric hospitals, nursing homes, board and care homes, Community housing, juvenile detention facilities, homeless shelters, and jails and
4

prisons, including all general areas as well as special mental health or forensic units. 42 C.P.R. § 51.2. 12. Under the PADD Act, facilities include "any settIng that provides care, treatment, services and habilitation.... Facilities include, but are not limited to the following: Community living arrangements ..., day programs, juvenile detention centers, hospitals, nursing homesj homeless shelters, jails and prisons." 45 C.F.R. § 1386.19. ' 13. Under the PAlMI Act, "care" and "treatment" are defined as services: provided to prevent, identify, reduce or stabilize mental illness or emotional impairment such as mental health screening, evaluations, counseling, biomedical, behavioral and psychotherapies, supportive or other adjunctive therapies, medication supervision, special education and rehabilitation, even if only, "as needed" or under a contractual arrangement. 42 C.F.R.§ 51.2. 14. DYS facilities like Chalkville, Vacca, and Mt. Meigs constitute facilities as described under both the PAlMI and PADD Acts. 15. The PAlMI andPADD Acts empower ADAP to investigate incidents of abuse and neglect of
individuals if the incidents are reported to the system or ifthere is probable cause to believe
that the incidents occUlTed. 42 U.S.C. § 10805; 42 C.F.R. § 51.41; 42 C.F.R. § 51.42; 42 U.S.C. § 15043; 45 C.P.R. § 1386.22(a)(3). 16. To carry out ADAP's investigatory mandates, the PAlMI and PADD Acts authorize ADAP
prompt access to all records of any individual who is a client of the system if the individual,
01' his legal guardian, conservator, or other legal representative, has authorized the system to
have such access. 42 U.S.c. § 10805; 45 C.P.R. § 1386.22(a)(l); 42 U.S.C. § 15043; 42
C.P.R. § S1.41(b)(1).
5

17. The PAlMI and PADD Acts provide ADAP with prompt access to records of individuals who are in the custody of the state and with respect to whom a complaint has been received by the system or with respect to whom there is probable cause to believe such individual has been subjected to abuse or neglect. 42 U.S.C.§ 10805; 42 c'F.R. § 5 1.41 (b)(2){ii); 42 U.S.c. § 15043; 45 C.F.R. § 1386.22(a)(2)(ii).
18. The PAlMI and PADD Acts pmvide ADAP with reasonable, unaccompanied access to facilities including all areas which are used by or are accessible to residents, and to programs and their residents at all times, for the purposes of conducting a full investigation of an incident of abuse or neglect. 42 U.S.C. § 10805; 42 C.F.R. § 51.42(b); 42 U.S.C.§ 15043; 45 C.F.R. § 1386.22(f).
19. The PAlMI and PADD Acts provide ADAP reasonable unaccompanied access to all residents of a facility at reasonable times to provide P&A service and contact infonnation, rights information, monitor compliance with respect to the rights and safety of service recipients, and to view and photograph all areas of the facility which are used by residents or are accessible to residents. 42 U.S.C. § 10805; 42 C.F.R. § 51.42 (c); 42 U.S.C. § 15043; 45 C.F.R. § 1386.22(g).
20. The PAIMI and PADD Acts provide ADAP unaccompanied access to residents offacUities, including the opportunity to meet and communicate privately with such individuals regularly, both formally and infonnaIIy, by telephone, mail and in person. 42 C.F.R. § 51.42 (d); 42 C.F.R. § 1386.22(h).
21. The PAlMI regulations require DYS to provide ADAP: (2) Reports prepared by an agency charged with investigating abuse, neglect, or injury occurring at facility rendering care or treatment, or, or by or for the facility itself, that desclibe any or all of the fonowing: (1) Abuse, neglect, or injury occurring at the facility; (ii) The steps taken to investigate the incidents; (iii)
6

Reports and records, including persOlmel records) prepared or maintained by the facility, in connection with such reports of incidents; or (iv) Supporting information that was relied tlpOn in creating a report, including all information and records used or reviewed in preparing reports of abuse, neglect or injury such as records which describe persons who were interviewed, physical and documentary evidence that was reviewed, and the related investigative findings:' 42 C.F.R. § 51.41 (c)(2), 22. The access provisions of the three statutes are interrelated and it is clear that Congress intended that they be applied in a consistent manner. The PAIR Act expressly incorporates by reference (at 42 U.S.c. § 794e (f) the authority regarding access to facilities and records (as wen as the other general authorities granted to P&As) set forth in the PADD Act. Moreover, the preamble to the PAIMI Act regulations states that it is the goal of the Department of Health and Human Services "to ensure that all facets of the P&A system administered by the Department [i.e., the PAlMI and PADD Acts] are subject to the same requirements." 62 Fed. Reg. 53549 (Oct. 15, 1997). 23. The PAlMI Act's implementing regulations states that ADAP has the right to access all residents ofa facility where those withmentaliIlness and emotional disorders resige "despite the existence of any State or local laws or regulations which restrict informal access to minors and adults with legal guardians or conservators." 42 C.F.R. § S1.42(e). 24. In addition to lengthy citations of PADD and PAIMI access authority found in ADAP's 2005 complaint and related correspondence, ADAP has provided DYS counsel with numerous pieces of written correspondence explaining ADAP's monitoring and access authority, See Exhibits B1~B6.
7

Defendant repeatedly has denied ADAP's lawful access to DYS residents, facilities, records, and staff.
Cllalbills 25. On February 20, 2007, ADAP Staff Attomey Nancy Anderson provided DY8 counsel,
Dudley Perry, with written notice that ADAP wished to monitor the DYS Chalkvi11e Campus on March 1st. Anderson reminded DYS Counsel on February 20 and again on February 28th that ADAP possesses federal authority to conduct unaccompanied monitoring activities of DYS facilities "for the purposes of: 1) providing information and training on programs addressing the needs of individuals with mental illness, individual rights, and the protection and advocacy services available from ADAP; 2) monitoring compliance with respect to the rights and safety of residents; and 3) viewing and photographing all areas of the facility which are used by residents or are accessible to residents." 42 U.S.C. § 10805; 42 C.F.R. § 51.42(c). See Exhibit C.
26. Due to statewide tornado advisories on March 1S\ ADAP agreed with DYS to reschedule its
Chalkville monitoring visit to March 6, 2007. 27. On March 6, 2007, ADAP Staff Attorney Andrea Mixson and Senior Case Advocate Christy
10hnson an'ived at the Chalkville campus. As part of ADAP's monitoring activities authOlized by the PADD and PALMI Acts, Mixson and Johnson engaged in private conversations with numerous residents regardingtreatmentconcems at Chalkville. Mixson and 10hnson also distributed brochures containing ADAP's contact infonnation and a description of ADAP's programs and services. See Exhibits D and E. 28. Among the many residents who communicated privately with Mixson and Johnson on that
day, three residents, J.c., B.P. and S.B., stated they desired additional confidential
8

communications with Mixson and 10hnson regarding inappropriate treatment at ChalkviIIe. After speaking bliefly and confidentially with these three residents, Mixson and Johnson infonned the three girls they would return for additional confidential visits as soon as possible. See Exhibits Dand E. 29; On March 21, 2007, Mixsonprqvided DYS counsel written notice that ADAPplanned a second monitoring visit to Chalkville on March 27th. See Exhibit H. Mixson reminded DYS counsel that ADAPpossesses federal access authQrity to conduct unaccompanied monitoring activities of DYS facilities Hfor the purposes of: 1) providing illfonnation and training on programs addressing the needs of individuals with mental illness, individual rights, and the protection and advocacy services available from ADAP; 2) monitoring compliance with respect to the rights and safety of residents; and 3) viewing and photographing all areas of the
facility which are used by residents or are accessible to residents." 42 U.S.C. § 10805; 42
C.F.R. § 51.42(c). In addition, Mixson stated to DYS counsel that she and Johnson requested time to speak confidentially with residents J;c. B.P.and S.B., and requested copies of DYS records for those three residents. 30. DYS counsel responded to Mixson on March 21st, statil1g: "We will communicate with Chalkville and alTange for your visit next week. I will ask them to coordinate a timeforyour monitoring visit and visit with the girls you named." See Exhibit F. 31. On March 22, 2007, DYS counsel contacted Mixson and Anderson, requesting that the March 27th monitoring visit be postponed. See Exhibit D. Mixson emailed DYS counsel later that day stating that ADAP would agree to postpone its ChalkviIle monitoring to March 28th• See Exhibit G. Mixson followed-up in writing with DYS counsel to the same effect on March 22rd and March 26th . See Exhibit H.
9

32. Mixson and Johnson arrived at Chalkville for their second monitoring visit on March 28, 2007. They met with Ms. Tate, a DYS employee, about the purpose of the monitoring visit. Mixson and Johnson infonned Ms. Tate they had arranged with DYS counsel to communicate with residents residing in the Cherokee Unit and to conduct follow-up interviews with J.C., B.P. and S.B. Mixson and Johnson infonned Ms. Tate that ADAP intended to provide ADAP contact al1dservice infonnation to residents in the. Cherokee unit and to speak privately with Cherokee residents about their treatment at Chalkville. See Exhibits D and E.
33. Ms. Tate informed Mixson and Jolmson that Chalkville Director Yolanda Byrdsong had instructed her to deny ADAP aCCess to speak with any Chalkville residents other than J.C., RP. and S.B., and those other residents who have a disability, See Exhibits D and E.
34. Mixson and Jolmson explained to Ms. Tate that ADAP has federal access authority to communicate privately with any resident of Chalkvil1e and that ADAP planned the March 28th monitoring visit to speak with ChalkvilIe residents who did not have an opportunity to meet and speak privately with them during their previous monitoring on March 61h, See Exhibits D and E.
35. 10hnson contacted ADAP Attorney Anderson informing her of Ms. Tate's refusal to allow ADAP to speak privately with all residents of Chalkville. See Exhibit E. Anderson immediately faxed DYS counsel and Ms. Tate a letter reminding them of ADAP's access authority and included a copy ofpertinent PAlMI regulations relating to P&A access for their review. See Exhibit 1.
36, Following Mixson and Johnson's confidential interviews with J.C., B.P. and S.B., Mixson and Johnson restated to Ms. Tate they intended to exercise ADAP's federal access authority
10

to communicate privately with other Chalkvi1le residents. Ms. Tate infonlledMixson and Johnson that DYS counsel instructed her to deny ADAP's access to speak privately with any DYS resident unless that resident had a disability. Ms. Tate infonned Mixson and Johnson that they would only be pem1itted to make a general annOuncement about ADAPand to distribute brochures to residents on the Cherokee Unit. Mixson and Johnson again explained to Ms. Tate that the PAIMI Act access provisions provide ADAP the authority to communicate privately with any resident of ChalkvilIe regardless of whether they are a current client of ADAP or have a disability. See Exhibits D and E. 37. Mixson and 10hnson were accompanied by Ms. Tate to the Cherokee Unit, where Mixson and Johnson distributed brochures and made a general announcement about ADAP's services. During Mixson's announcement, Ms. Tate interrupted and stated to the assembled residents that they must have a disability before they could receive assistance from ADAP. 101111son then clarified that any resident could speak privately withADAP representatives and that ADAP has the authority to detennine whether a resident has a disability. See EXhibits D andE.
Vacca 38. On March 27, 2007, Johnson sent DYS counsel written notice that Mix$on and Johnson
planned to lTIonitor the Vacca campus on Tuesday, April 10th. See Exhibit J. Johnson reminded DYS counsel that ADAP possesses federal access authority to conduct unaccompanied monitoring activities of DYS facilities "for the purposes of: l)providing information and training on programs addressing the needs ofindividuals with mental illness, individual rights, and the protection and advocacy services available from ADAP; 2) monitoring compliance with respect to the lights and safety of residents; and 3) viewing and
II

photographing all areas of the facility which are used by residents or are accessible to residents." 42 U.S.c. §10805; 42 C.F.R. § 51.42(c). 39. DYS counsel did not respond to 10lmson's March 27th correspondence or to Attorney Anderson's March 30th correspondence to the same effect. See Exhibit 1.
40. Upon arriving at Vacca on April 10th for tbe scheduled monitoring, Ms. Delbridge infonned
Jolmson and Mixson that DYS counsel had instructed her to prohibit ADAP from
communicating with any resident or distributing any ADAP brochures or busitless cards to
any resident unless they were currently ADAP's clients. Ms. Delbridge also infonned Johnson and Mixson that ADAP's facility access was to be limited to an accompanied tour of
the Vacca grounds and buildings that was to be conducted bya security guard; SeeExhibits
D and E. Mt. Meigs
41; On March 5 and April 6, 2007, Mixson notified DYS counsel in writing that ADAP planned to conduct monitoring activities at the Mt. Meigs facility on April 17,2007. See Exhibit Kl~ K2. Consistent with previous correspondence from ADAP on this matter, Mixson reminded DYS counsel that ADAP possesses federal access authority to conduct uliaccompanied monitoring activities of DYS facilities "for the purposes of 1) providing infonnation and training on programs addressing the needs of individua1s with mental illness, individual rights, and the protection and advocacy services available from ADAP; 2) monitoring compliance with respect to the rights and safety of residents; and 3) viewing and
photographing all areas of the facility which are used by residents or are accessible to
residents." 42 U.S.c. § 10805; 42 C.F.R. § 51.42(c).
12

42. Mixson and Johnson arrived at the Mt. Meigs facility on April 17th• Mixson and Johnson informed the security guard that they were ADAP employees and had arranged a monitoring with DYS counsel. The guard stated that DYS counsel had not notified him of ADAP's monitoting and that he could 110t pennit them to conduct monitoring activities at Mt. Meigs. See Exhibits D and E.
43. Mixson and Johnson then spoke with Ms, Phyllis Camey, administrative assistant to DYS counsel, who stated that ADAP was only permitted an accompanied tour of the facility and could not speak with residents or distribute infonnation about ADAP, Mixson explained that ADAP's federal access authority authorized Mixson and Jolmson to communicate ptivately with residents, distribute ADAP infonnation, and have tmaccompanied access to the facility, and provided the assistant with a copy of Anderson's March 28th letter to DYS counsel, describing ADAP's federal access authority. See Exhibits D and E.
44. After she contacted DYS counsel, Ms. Camey infonned Mixson that counsel denied ADAP access to speak with residents other than curre1it ADAP clients and denied ADAP access to disttibute ADAP information to any resident. The assistant also declared that Mixspn and Johnson would be required to be accompanied at all times on Mt. Meigs grounds by a DYS employee. See Exhibits D and E.
Request/or D.R. 'sRecord
45. On March 5,2007, Johnson provided DYS Counsel with notice that Vacca resident, D.R. was suffering mistreatment and verbal abuse by Vacca staff. See Exhibit L. ADAP had received a letter from D.R. reporting abuse by staft: See Exhibit M.
46. On April 4, 2007, Johnson learned from D,R. 's case manager, Patricia Henderson, that D.R. had been hospitalized at Children's Hospital in Binningham for elevated blood levels and a
13

possible self-administered medication overdose. Later on April 4th, Johnson reviewed n.R.'s DYS case file at the Vacca camp~IS and requested a copy of it from Vacca Administrator Delbridge. Ms. Delbridge infonned Johnson that a copy ofD.R.'srecord would be available for Johnson on ADAP's April 102007 monitoring visit to Vacca. See Exhibit E. 47. On April 10, 2007, Johnson met with Ms, Delbridge and reminded herthat ADAP requested copies ofD.R.'s records on April 4, 2007 and that she had stated she would provide copies of those records to Johnson during the scheduled April lOth Vacca monitoring. Ms. Delbridge replied that she would not provide ADAP with copies of D.R.'s record untiID.R. was released from the hospital and had signeda.n authorization for release of records. See Exhibits D and E. As of the date of this filingj DYS has neither provided ADAPcopies of the child's records, as required under 42 C.F.R. § 51.41, nor provided ADAP with awtitten explanation as to why it has refused to provide them, as required under 42 C.F.R. §51.43 -six weeks after ADAP first requested them.
Requests for Incide1lt Reports altd Investigative Fbldillgs 48. On November 29, 2006, ADAP sent a written request for the nyS incident reports and
investigative findings regarding three clients, W.B., I-LM. and KW, male residents ofVacca and Mt. Meigs whom ADAP had probable cause to believe suffered abuse or neglect while in DYS custody. See Exhibit N. On April 20, 2007, ADAP again made a written request that
these reports be forwarded to ADAP. See E:l{hibito. As of the date of this firing, DYS has
neither provided ADAP copies of the incident repOJis and investigatory findings regarding these three clients, as required under 42 C.F.R. § 51.42, nor provided ADAP with a written explanation as to why it has refused toprovide them, as required under 42 C.P.R. § 51.43.
14

49. On April 20; 2007, ADAP sent a written request for copies of incident reports and investigative findings prepared by DYS regarding le., B.P. and S.B., residents at Chalkville whom ADAP had probable cause to believe suffered abuse or neglect while in DYS custody. S.ee Exhibit O. As of the date of this filing, DYS has neither provided ADAP copies of the incident reports and investigatory findings regarding these three clients, as required under 42 C.F.R. § 51.42, nor provided ADAP with a written explanation as to why it has refused to provide them, as required under 42 C.F.R. § 51.43.
50. On April 20, 2007, ADAP sent a written request for copies of all investigative reports
prepared by any agency charged with investigating abuse or neglect, Or injury occurring at Vacca, Chalkville and Mt. Meigs within the last 6 months. ADAP requested that these reports be forwarded to ADAP by May 4, 2007. See Exhibit O. As of the date ofthis filing, DYS has neither provided ADAP copies of the requested incident reports and investigatory findings, as required under, 42 C.F.R. § 51.42, nor provided ADAP an explanation as to why
it has refused to provide them, as required under 42 C.F.R. § 51.43.
51. Plaintiff does not have an adequate remedy at law and will be irreparably harmed if the Defendant is pennitted to continue prohibiting.ADAP from: a) having reasonable unaccompanied access, for monitoring and investigatory purposes, to public and private areas of DYS facilities; b) interviewing facility service recipients, staffand other persons as part ofabuse and neglect investigations when ADAP has probable cause to believe an incident has occurred; c) providing information and training about individual rights and services provided by the P&A system;
15

d) communicating privately with facUity residents; e) accessing facility incident reports, investigatory findings; and records; and f) accessing residents' records.
CAUSE OF ACTION 52. The policies, procedures, regulations, practices and customs of the Defendant, acting under
color of law, violate and contintle to violate the rights of the Plaintiff to full, complete, prompt access to DYS facilities, staff, residents and records, in violation of the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act of 1986, 42 U.S.c. §§ 10S0let seq., and its implementing regulations at 42 C.P.R. §§ 51.1 et seq.; the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000, 42 U.S.c. §§ 15001 et seq., and its implementing regulations at 45 C.P.R. §§ 1385 et seq.; the Protection and Advocacy ofIndividual Rights Program, 29 U.S.C., §§ 794e, etseq. and its implementing regulations at 34 C.P.R. §§ 381.1 etseq.; and 42 U.S;c. § 1983.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF 53. Wherefore, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:
a) Grant injunctive relief enjoining the Defendant and his agents and employees from denying ADAP full,compfete, timely access to DYS residents, facilities and facility staff to conduct monitoring activities and abuse and neglect investigations as well as full, complete, timely access to records, including those of ADAP client D.R.;
b) Issue a declaratory judgment that the Defendant's polices, regulations, and practices of denying ADAP full, complete and timely access to DYS residents, facilities, facility staff and records to monitor and to conduct abuse and neglect investigations violate the PAIMI, PADD and PAIR Acts;
16

c) Award Plaintiff reasonably necessary attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2202 and 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and
d) Award such other and further relief to which Plaintiff is justly entitled, at law or equity.
Respectfully Submitted,
E-m it: jtucker@adap.ua.edu Nancy Anderson AL Bar No.: ASB-3738-R67N Email: nanderso@adap.ua.edu Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Ptogram University.of Alabama Box 870395 Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0395 Telephone: (205) 348-4928 Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
17

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY PROGRAM
Plaintiff,
v.
J. WALTER WOOD, JR. in his official Capacity as Executive Director of the Alabama Department of Youth Services,
Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No.

)

2 :07-CV-434-MHT

)

)

)

)

)

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
I. Plaintiff, Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program ("ADAP"), moves for Summary Judgment against J. Walter Wood, Jr., in his official capacity as Executive Director of Alabama Department of Youth Services ("DYS"). Grounds supporting this motion are as follows.
a. No genuine issue of material fact exists to show that Defendant has provided Plaintiff access to incident reports and investigative findings prepared by DYS or any outside agency regarding abuse and neglect concerns raised on behalf of the following ADAP clients: W.B. , H.M. , K.W. , J.c. , B.P. , and S.B.
b. Plaintiff has legal authority to obtain records under the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. 10801, et ~., and the Developmental Disabilities Act Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 1975 , 42 U.S.c. § 6041 , et~. , and such federal authority preempts

1

any state confidentiality laws or attomey work-product privileges asserted by the Defendant. c. Plaintiff files simultaneously a separate memorandum oflaw in support of, and hereby incorporates that memorandum as part of, this motion.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment.
Respectfi.Illy Submitted, /s/ James A. Tucker James A. Tucker Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program University of Alabama Box 870395 Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 (205) 348-4928 (Phone) (205) 349-3909 (Facsimile) Attorney for Plaintiff
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on December 17, 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CMlECF system which will send notice of such filing to the following attorneys of record for the defendants: Mr. Dudley PetTy Jr. General Counsel Alabama Department of Youth Services PO Box 66 Mount Meigs, AL 36057-0066
lsi James A. Tucker James A. Tucker
3

 
 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

ALABAMA DISABILITIES

)

ADVOCACY PROGRAM,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

J. WALTER WOOD, JR., in )

his official capacity as )

Executive Director of the )

Alabama Department of

)

Youth Services,

)

)

Defendant.

)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:07cv434-MHT (WO)

JUDGMENT

The court having been informed that this cause is now

settled, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT, and DECREE of the

court that this lawsuit is dismissed in its entirety with

prejudice, with the parties to bear their own costs and

with leave to the parties, within 45 days, to stipulate

to a different basis for dismissal or to stipulate to the

entry of judgment instead of dismissal, and with leave to

any party to file, within 45 days, a motion to have the

dismissal set aside and the case reinstated or the

settlement enforced, should the settlement not be consummated.
The clerk of the court is DIRECTED to enter this document on the civil docket as a final judgment pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
DONE, this the 30th day of April, 2008.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 
 Case 2:07-cv-00434-MHT-SRW Document 79 Filed 09/05/08 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA,
NORTHERN DIVISION

ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY )

PROGRAM,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

J. WALTER WOOD, JR. in his official )

Capacity as Executive Director of the

)

Alabama Department of Youth Services, )

)

Defendant.

)

Civil Action No. 2:07cv434-MHT

JOINT MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RETENTION OF JURISDICTION

On August 27, 2008, this Court ordered the parties to file a joint motion for approval of

settlement, with the proposed settlement attached, by September 5, 2008 (Doc. No. 78). The

parties have conferred and submit this joint motion for approval of settlement as ordered.

WHEREFORE, the parties jointly move this Court for approval of the Settlement

Agreement in this case, attached as Exhibit 1 to this motion, and for this Court to retain

jurisdiction of this case for a period of one year.

The parties note that the Settlement Agreement incorporates a detailed:

1) Protocol for facilitating ADAP's access to DYS facilities, employees, records, and to

sh1dents who are in the custody ofDYS, including in the physical custody ofDYS

whether at DYS or at DYS-contract facilities and their records, and

2) Process for dispute resolution between the parties in the event that a dispute should

arise regarding ADAP's access to DYS facilities, employees, records, and sh1dents.

Respectfully Submitted,

1

Case 2:07-cv-00434-MHT-SRW Document 79 Filed 09/05/08 Page 2 of 2

Is/ James A. Tucker James A. Tucker Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program University of Alabama Box 870395 Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0395 Telephone: (205) 348-4928 Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

Is/ T. Dudley Perry T. Dudley Perry, Esq. Deputy Attorney General & Counsel,
DYS PO Box 66 Mt. Meigs, AL 36057 Phone: 334-215-3803 Facsimile: 334-215-3872 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this the 5111 day of September, 2008, I filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system that will send notice of such filing to the following (or by U.S. Mail to non-CM/ECF participants):

T. Dudley Pen-y, Esq. Sancha E. Teele, Esq. Counsel for Defendant

Is/ James A. Tucker

James A. Tucker Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program Box 870395 Tuscaloosa, AL 35487

... ,.

2

 
 Case 2:07-cv-00434-MHT-SRW Document 61 Filed 03/17/08 Page 1 of 1
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

ALABAMA DISABILITIES

)

ADVOCACY PROGRAM,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

J. WALTER WOOD, JR., in )

his official capacity as )

Executive Director of the )

Alabama Department of

)

Youth Services,

)

)

Defendant.

)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:07cv434-MHT

ORDER

It is ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for summary

judgment (Doc. No. 38) is denied.

DONE, this the 17th day of March, 2008.

/s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 
 Case 2:07-cv-00434-MHT-SRW Document 81 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 1 of 2
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

ALABAMA DISABILITIES

)

ADVOCACY PROGRAM,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

J. WALTER WOOD, JR., in )

his official capacity as )

Executive Director of the )

Alabama Department of

)

Youth Services,

)

)

Defendant.

)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:07cv434-MHT (WO)

JUDGMENT AND INJUNCTION

In accordance with the memorandum opinion entered on

this date, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT, AND DECREE of the

court as follows:

(1) The joint motion to adopt the settlement

agreement and retain jurisdiction (Doc. No. 79) is

granted;

Case 2:07-cv-00434-MHT-SRW Document 81 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 2 of 2
(2) The settlement agreement, attached as an appendix to this judgment, is incorporated as the order of this court;
(3) In accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement, the court retains jurisdiction to enforce the agreement for a period of one year from the date of this judgment; and
(4) Defendant J. Walter Wood, in his official capacity, and his officers, agents, servants, and employees, and those persons in active concert or participation with him who receive actual notice of this judgment and injunction by personal service or otherwise, is ENJOINED and RESTRAINED from failing to comply immediately with the terms of the settlement agreement.
The clerk of the court is DIRECTED to enter this document on the civil docket as a final judgment pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
DONE, this the 10th day of September, 2008. /s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-00434-MHT-SRW Document 81-2 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 1 of 24

Case 2:07-cv-00434-MHT-SRW Document 81-2 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 2 of 24

Case 2:07-cv-00434-MHT-SRW Document 81-2 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 3 of 24

Case 2:07-cv-00434-MHT-SRW Document 81-2 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 4 of 24

Case 2:07-cv-00434-MHT-SRW Document 81-2 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 5 of 24

Case 2:07-cv-00434-MHT-SRW Document 81-2 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 6 of 24

Case 2:07-cv-00434-MHT-SRW Document 81-2 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 7 of 24

Case 2:07-cv-00434-MHT-SRW Document 81-2 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 8 of 24

Case 2:07-cv-00434-MHT-SRW Document 81-2 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 9 of 24

Case 2:07-cv-00434-MHT-SRW Document 81-2 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 10 of 24

Case 2:07-cv-00434-MHT-SRW Document 81-2 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 11 of 24

Case 2:07-cv-00434-MHT-SRW Document 81-2 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 12 of 24

Case 2:07-cv-00434-MHT-SRW Document 81-2 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 13 of 24

Case 2:07-cv-00434-MHT-SRW Document 81-2 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 14 of 24

Case 2:07-cv-00434-MHT-SRW Document 81-2 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 15 of 24

Case 2:07-cv-00434-MHT-SRW Document 81-2 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 16 of 24

Case 2:07-cv-00434-MHT-SRW Document 81-2 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 17 of 24

Case 2:07-cv-00434-MHT-SRW Document 81-2 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 18 of 24

Case 2:07-cv-00434-MHT-SRW Document 81-2 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 19 of 24

Case 2:07-cv-00434-MHT-SRW Document 81-2 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 20 of 24

Case 2:07-cv-00434-MHT-SRW Document 81-2 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 21 of 24

Case 2:07-cv-00434-MHT-SRW Document 81-2 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 22 of 24

Case 2:07-cv-00434-MHT-SRW Document 81-2 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 23 of 24

Case 2:07-cv-00434-MHT-SRW Document 81-2 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 24 of 24

Case 2:07-cv-00434-MHT-SRW Document 81-3 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 1 of 2
A copy of this checklist is available at the website for the USCA, 11th Circuit at www.ca11.uscourts.gov Effective on April 9, 2006, the new fee to file an appeal will increase from $255.00 to $455.00.
CIVIL APPEALS JURISDICTION CHECKLIST
1. Appealable Orders: Courts of Appeals have jurisdiction conferred and strictly limited by statute:
(a) Appeals from final orders pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291: Only final orders and judgments of district courts, or final orders of bankruptcy courts which have been appealed to and fully resolved by a district court under 28 U.S.C.§ 158, generally are appealable. A final decision is one that “ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.” Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Mestre, 701 F.2d 1 365, 1 368 ( 11th Ci r. 1 983). A magistrate judge’s report and recommendation is not final and appealable until judgment thereon is entered by a district court judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
(b) In cases involving multiple parties or multiple claims, a judgment as to fewer than all parties or all claims is not a final, appealable decision unless the district court has certified the judgment for immediate review under Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). Williams v. Bishop, 732 F.2d 885, 885- 86 (11th Cir. 1984). A judg ment which resolves all issues except matters, such as attorneys’ fees and costs, that are collateral to the merits, is immediately appealable. Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 486 U.S.196, 201, 108 S.Ct. 1717, 1721-22, 100 L .Ed.2d 178 (1988); LaChance v. Duffy’s Draft House, Inc., 146 F.3d 832, 837 (11th Cir. 1998).
(c) Appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a): Appeals are permitted from orders “granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions or refusing to dissolve or modify injunctions . . .” and from “[i]nterlocutory decrees . . . determining the rights and liabilities of parties to admiralty cases in which appeals from final decrees are allowed.” Interlocutory appeals from orders denying temporary restraining orders are not permitted.
(d) Appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and Fed.R.App.P. 5: The certification specified in 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) must be obtained before a petition for permission to appeal is filed in the Court of Appeals. The district court’s denial of a motion for certification is not itself appealable.
(e) Appeals pursuant to judicially created exceptions to the finality rule: Limited exceptions are discussed in cases including, but not limited to: Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546, 69S.Ct. 1221, 1225-26, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949); Atlantic Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Blythe Eastman Paine Webber, Inc., 890 F.2d 371, 376 (11th Cir. 1989); Gillespie v. United States Steel Corp., 379 U.S. 148, 157, 85 S.Ct. 308, 312, 13 L.Ed.2d 199 (1964). Rev.: 4/04

Case 2:07-cv-00434-MHT-SRW Document 81-3 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 2 of 2
2. Time for Filing: The timely filing of a notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional. Rinaldo v. Corbett, 256 F.3d 1276, 1278 (11th Cir. 2001). In civil cases, Fed.R.App.P. 4(a) and (c) set the following time limits:
(a) Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(1): A notice of appeal in compliance with the requirements set forth in Fed.R.App.P. 3 must be filed in the district court within 30 days after the entry of the order or judgment appealed from. However, if the United States or an officer or agency thereof is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed in the district court within 60 days after such entry. THE NOTICE MUST BE RECEIVED AND FILED IN THE DISTRICT COURT NO LATER THAN THE LAST DAY OF THE APPEAL PERIOD – no additional days are provided for mailing. Special filing provisions for inmates are discussed below.
(b) Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(3): “If one party timely files a notice of appeal, any other party may file a notice of appeal within 14 days after the date when the first notice was filed, or within the time otherwise prescribed by this Rule 4(a), whichever period ends later.”
(c) Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(4): If any party makes a timely motion in the district court under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure of a type specified in this rule, the time for appeal for all parties runs from the date of entry of the order disposing of the last such timely filed motion.
(d) Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(5) and 4(a)(6): Under certain limited circumstances, the district court may extend the time to file a notice of appeal. Under Rule 4(a)(5), the time may be extended if a motion for an extension is filed within 30 days after expiration of the time otherwise provided to file a notice of appeal, upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause. Under Rule 4(a)(6), the time may be extended if the district court finds upon motion that a party did not timely receive notice of the entry of the judgment or order, and that no party would be prejudiced by an extension.
(e) Fed.R.App.P. 4(c): If an inmate confined to an institution files a notice of appeal in either a civil case or a criminal case, the notice of appeal is timely if it is deposited in the institution’s internal mail system on or before the last day for filing. Timely filing may be shown by a declaration in compliance with 28 U.S.C. § 1746 or a notarized statement, either of which must set forth the date of deposit and state that first-class postage has been prepaid.
3. Format of the notice of appeal: Form 1, Appendix of Forms to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, is a suitable format. See also Fed.R.App.P. 3(c). A pro se notice of appeal must be signed by the appellant.
4. Effect of a notice of appeal: A district court loses jurisdiction (authority) to act after the filing of a timely notice of appeal, except for actions in aid of appellate jurisdiction or to rule on a timely motion of the type specified in Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(4).

 
 Case 2:07-cv-00434-MHT-SRW Document 64 Filed 03/17/08 Page 1 of 22

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY )

PROGRAM,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

v.

)

)

)

J. WALTER WOOD, JR. in his official )

Capacity as Executive Director of the

)

Alabama Department of Youth Services, )

)

Defendant.

)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:07-CV-434-MHT

CORRECTED AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. The Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program ("ADAP") ts a nonprofit organization

authorized by Congress to protect and advocate for the civil rights of persons with disabilities in Alaban1a. This complaint is related to a similar complaint filed in this Court less than two

years ago (Case 2:05-cv-01030-MHT), in which ADAP sought injunctive and declaratory

relief against the Alabama Department of Youth Services ("DYS") for refusing to provide

full access to ADAP's client, J.P., her records, DYS staff and other residents for the purposes of investigating allegations that J.P. was physically abused, mechanically restrained, and

denied psychiatric medication by DYS staff. Subsequently, the parties were ordered to mediation, ADAP obtained access, and the case was voluntarily dismissed on May 2, 2006.

See Doc. No. 000077-000095.

2. Since the dismissal of the 2005 complaint, DYS has engaged in a pattem and practice of refusing to provide ADAP with access to DYS residents, facilities, facility staff, and records,

preventing ADAP from fully exercising the monitoring and investigatory mandates

authorized to it under federal law.

Case 2:07-cv-00434-MHT-SRW Document 64 Filed 03/17/08 Page 2 of 22
3. ADAP brings this action against J. Walter Wood, Jr., in his official capacity as Executive Director of DYS, pursuant to the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act of 1986 ("PAlMI Act"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 10801 et seq., and its implementing regulations at 42 C.P.R. §§ 51 .1 et seq.; the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000 ("PADD Act"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 15001 et seq., and its implementing regulations at 45 C.P.R. §§ 1385 et seq.; the Protection and Advocacy of Individual Rights Progran1 ("PAIR Act"), 29 U.S.C., §§ 794e, et seq., and its implementing regulations at 34 C.P.R.§§ 381.1 et seq.; and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
4. ADAP seeks a pefl!lanent injunction preventing J. Walter Wood, Jr. and all agents of Mr. Wood from denying ADAP, as authorized by its federal enabling statutes and regulations, full, complete, timely access to DYS residents, facilities and facility staff as well as full, complete, timely access to records. In particular, Defendant has denied ADAP its federal statutory right tmder the PAIMI, PADD and PAIR Acts to: a) reasonable unaccompanied access, for monitoring and investigatory purposes, to public and private areas ofDYS facilities, in violation of 42 C.P.R. § 51.42(b); 42 C.P.R. § 51.42 (c); 45 C.F.R. § 1386.22(f); and 45 C.F.R. § 1386.22(g); b) interview residents, staff and other persons as part of an abuse and neglect investigation when ADAP had probable cause to believe an incident had occurred, in violation of42 C.F.R. § 51.42(b); c) provide information and training on individual rights and services provided by the P&A system, in violation of 42 C.F.R. § 51.42 (c) and 45 C.P.R. § 1386.22(g); d) communicate privately with facility residents, in violation of 42 C.P.R. § 51.42 (d) and 45 C.P.R. § 1386.22(h);
2

Case 2:07-cv-00434-MHT-SRW Document 64 Filed 03/17/08 Page 3 of 22
e) access to facility incident reports and investigatory findings, in violation of 42 C.F.R. § 51.41(c)(2); and
f) access to records of facility residents, in violation of 42 C.F.R. § 51.41 and 45 C.F.R. § 1386.22. JURISDICTION
5. Jurisdiction in this court is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 6. Venue is proper in tllis court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Defendant resides in
Montgomery County, Alaban1a. Ala. Code 1975 § 44-1-20 ("The principal offices of the department [of youth services] shall be located at the state capital.")
PARTIES 7. Plaintiff ADAP is a nonprofit organization in the state of Alabama authorized by
Congressional mandate to protect and advocate for the civil rights of persons with disabilities in Alabama. Plaintiff spends sigtlificant time and resources conducting federally authorized monitoring activities at DYS facilities like Chalkville, Vacca, and Mt. Meigs, and advocating for the rights of individuals residing in those facilities. ADAP is charged with the duty of investigating complaints of abuse and neglect of residents of facilities like Chalkville, Vacca, and Mt. Meigs under Congressional mandate pursuant to the PAIMI, PADD and PAIR Acts. ADAP files this complaint in its own name to redress injuries to itself and on behalf of its clients. 8. Defendant J. Walter Wood, Jr. , is the Executive Director of DYS. DYS is the agency in the state of Alabama established to "promote and safeguard the social well-being and general welfare of the youth of the state tlu·ough a comprehensive and coordinated program of public
3

Case 2:07-cv-00434-MHT-SRW Document 64 Filed 03/17/08 Page 4 of 22
services for the prevention of juvenile delinquency and the rehabilitation of delinquent youth." Ala. Code 1975 § 44-1-1.
STATEMENT OF FACTS ADAP's Access authority 9. In 1975, the PADD Act established the Protections and Advocacy ("P&A") System to investigate incidents of abuse and neglect and to pursue legal, administrative and other appropriate remedies to safeguard the rights of individuals with developmental disabilities. Congress extended the protection and advocacy mandate to cover individuals with mental illness with the en~ctment of the PAlMI Act in 1986. The scope of the P&A system was further expanded in 1993 when the PAIR Act was enacted. 10. To receive federal funding under the PAlMI, PADD and PAIR Acts, states must have in effect a P&A system. ADAP is designated as Alabama's P&A system. The PADD, PAlMI and PAIR Acts, along with their implementing regulations, authorize ADAP to investigate incidents of abuse and neglect and to pursue legal, administrative, and other appropriate remedies to ensure that the rights of persons with physical, mental and cognitive disabilities are protected - whether those persons live in facilities or in the commw1ity. 42 U.S.C. § 15043; 42 U.S.C. § 10805; 29 U.S.C. § 794e (a) and (f). See also, Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program v. J.S . Tarwater Developmental Ctr., 97 F.3d 492 (11th Cir. 1996). 11 . Under the PAIMI Act, "any public or private residential setting that provides overnight care accompanied by treatment services" is a facility which a P&A is authorized to access and monitor. Facilities include, but are not limited to the following: General and psychiatric hospitals, nursing homes, board and care homes, Community housing, juvenile detention facilities, homeless shelters, and jails and
4

Case 2:07-cv-00434-MHT-SRW Document 64 Filed 03/17/08 Page 5 of 22
prisons, including all general areas as well as special mental health or forensic units. 42 C.P.R.§ 51.2. 12. Under the PADD Act, facilities include "any setting that provides care, treatment, services and habilitation... . Facilities include, but are not limited to the following: Community living arrangements .. ., day programs, juvenile detention centers, hospitals, nursing homes, homeless shelters, jails and prisons." 45 C.P.R.§ 1386.19. 13. Under the PAlMI Act, "care" and "treatment" are defined as services: provided to prevent, identify, reduce or stabilize mental illness or emotion~l impairment such as mental health screening, evaluations, counseling, biomedical, behavioral and psychotherapies, supportive or . other adjunctive therapies, medication supervision, special education and rehabilitation, even if only, "as needed" or under a contractual arrangement. 42 C.P.R. § 51.2. 14. DYS facilities like Chalkville, Vacca, and Mt. Meigs constitute facilities as described under both the PAlMI and PADD Acts. 15. The PAlMI and PADD Acts empower ADAP to investigate incidents of abuse and neglect of individuals if the incidents are reported to the system or if there is probable cause to believe that the incidents occurred. 42 U.S.C. § 10805; 42 C.P.R. § 51.41; 42 C.P.R. § 51.42; 42 U.S.C. § 15043; 45 C.P.R. § 1386.22(a)(3). 16. To catTY out ADAP's investigatory mandates, the PAlMI ru1d PADD Acts authorize ADAP prompt access to all records of any individual who is a client of the system if the individual, or his legal guardian, conservator, or other legal representative, has authorized the system to have such access. 42 U.S.C. § 10805; 45 C.P.R. § 1386.22(a)(1); 42 U.S.C. § 15043; 42 C.P.R. § 51.41(b)(l).
5

Case 2:07-cv-00434-MHT-SRW Document 64 Filed 03/17/08 Page 6 of 22
17. The PAIMI and PADD Acts provide ADAP with prompt access to records of individuals who are in the custody of the state and with respect to whom a complaint has been received by the system or with respect to whom there is probable cause to believe such individual has been subjected to abuse or neglect. 42 U.S.C. § 10805; 42 C.F.R. § 51.41(b)(2)(ii); 42 U.S.C. § 15043; 45 C.F.R. § 1386.22(a)(2)(ii).
18. The PAlMI and PADD Acts provide ADAP with reasonable, unaccompanied access to facilities including all areas which are used by or are accessible to residents, and to programs and their residents at all times, for the purposes of conducting a full investigation of an incident of abuse or neglect. 42 U.S.C. § 10805; 42 C.F.R. § 51.42(b); 42 U.S.C. § 15043; 45 C.F.R. § 1386.22(£).
19. The PAlMI and PADD Acts provide ADAP reasonable tmaccompanied access to all residents of a facility at reasonable times to provide P&A service and contact information, rights information, monitor compliance with respect to the rights and safety of service recipients, and to view and photograph all areas of the facility which are used by residents or are accessible to residents. 42 U.S.C. § 10805; 42 C.F.R. § 51.42 (c); 42 U.S.C. § 15043; 45 C.F.R. § 1386.22(g).
20. The PAIMI and PADD Acts provide ADAP unaccompanied access to residents of facilities, including the opportunity to meet and communicate privately with such individuals regularly, both formally and informally, by telephone, mail and in person. 42 C.F.R. § 51.42 (d); 42 C.F.R. § 1386.22(h).
21. The PAlMI regulations require DYS to provide ADAP: (2) Reports prepared by an agency charged with investigating abuse, neglect, or injury occurring at facility rendering care or treatment, or, or by or for the facility itself, that describe any or all of the following: (i) Abuse, neglect, or injury occurring at the facility; (ii) The steps taken to investigate the incidents; (iii)
6

Case 2:07-cv-00434-MHT-SRW Document 64 Filed 03/17/08 Page 7 of 22
Reports and records, including pers01mel records, prepared or maintained by the facility, in connection with such reports of incidents; or (iv) Supporting inf01mation that was relied upon in creating a report, including all information and records used or reviewed in preparing reports of abuse, neglect or injury such as records which describe persons who were interviewed, physical and documentary evidence that was reviewed, and the related investigative findings." 42 C.F.R. § 51.41 (c)(2). 22. The access provisions of the three statutes are interrelated and it is clear that Congress intended that they be applied in a consistent manner. The PAIR Act expressly incorporates by reference (at 42 U.S.C. § 794e (f)) the authority regarding access to facilities and records (as well as the other general authorities granted to P&As) set forth in the PADD Act. Moreover, the preamble to the PAIMI Act regulations states that it is the goal of the Department of Health and Human Services "to ensure that all facets of the P&A system administered by the Department [i.e., the PAIMI and PADD Acts] are subject to the same requirements." 62 Fed. Reg. 53549 (Oct. 15, 1997). 23. The PAlMI Act's implementing regulations states that ADAP has the right to access all residents of a facility where those with mental illness and emotional disorders reside "despite the existence of any State or local laws or regulations which restrict informal access to minors and adults with legal guardians or conservators." 42 C.F.R. § 51.42(e). 24. In addition to lengthy citations ofPADD and PAlMI access authority found in ADAP's 2005 complaint and related correspondence, ADAP has provided DYS counsel with numerous pieces of written correspondence explaining ADAP's monitoring and access authority. See Doc. No. 000096-000109.
7

Case 2:07-cv-00434-MHT-SRW Document 64 Filed 03/17/08 Page 8 of 22
Defendant repeatedly has denied ADAP's lawful access to DYS residents, facilities, r·ecords, and staff.
Chalkville 25. On February 20, 2007, ADAP Staff Attomey Nancy Anderson provided DYS counsel,
Dudley Perry, with written notice that ADAP wished to monitor the DYS Chalkville Campus on March 1st. Anderson reminded DYS Cmmsel on February 20 and again on February 28th that ADAP possesses federal authority to conduct unaccompanied monitoring activities of DYS facilities "for the purposes of: 1) providing information and training on programs addressing the nee~s of individuals with mental illness, individual rights, and the protection and advocacy services available from ADAP; 2) monitoring compliance with respect to the 1ights and safety of residents; and 3) viewing and photographing all areas of the facility which are used by residents or are accessible to residents." 42 U.S.C. § 10805; 42 C.F.R. § 51.42(c). See Doc. No. 000110-000111. 26. Due to statewide tornado advisories on March 15\ ADAP agreed with DYS to reschedule its Chalkville monitoring visit to March 6, 2007. 27. On March 6, 2007, ADAP Staff Attorney Andrea Mixson and Senior Case Advocate Christy Johnson arrived at the Chalkville campus. As part of ADAP 's monitoring activities authorized by the PADD and PAlMI Acts, Mixson and Jolmson engaged in private conversations with numerous residents regarding treatment concerns at Chalkville. Mixson and Johnson also distributed brochures containing ADAP's contact information and a description of ADAP's programs and services. See Doc. No. 000112-000126. 28. Among the many residents who communicated privately with Mixson and Johnson on that day, three residents, J.C., B.P. and S.B., stated they desired additional confidential
8

Case 2:07-cv-00434-MHT-SRW Document 64 Filed 03/17/08 Page 9 of 22
communications with Mixson and Jolmson regarding inappropriate treatment at Chalkville. After speaking briefly and confidentially with these three residents, Mixson and Johnson informed the three girls they would return for additional confidential visits as soon as possible. See Doc. No. 000112-000126. 29. On March 21, 2007, Mixson provided DYS counsel written notice that ADAP planned a second monitoring visit to Chalkville on March 27th. See Doc. No. 000130-000131. Mixson reminded DYS cotmsel that ADAP possesses federal access authority to conduct unaccompanied monitoring activities of DYS facilities "for the purposes of: 1) providing infonnation and training on programs addressing the needs of individuals with mental illness, individual rights, and the protection and advocacy services available from ADAP; 2) monitoring compliance with respect to the rights and safety of residents; and 3) viewing and photographing all areas of the facility which are used by residents or are accessible to residents." 42 U.S.C. § 10805; 42 C.F.R. § 51.42(c). In addition, Mixson stated to DYS counsel that she and Johnson requested time to speak confidentially with residents J.C. B.P. and S.B., and requested copies of DYS records for those three residents. 30. DYS counsel responded to Mixson on March 21st, stating: "We will communicate with Chalkville and arrange for your visit next week. I will ask them to coordinate a time for your monitoring visit and visit with the girls you named." See Doc. No. 000127-000128. 31. On March 22, 2007, DYS counsel contacted Mixson and Anderson, requesting that the March 27th monitoring visit be postponed. See Doc. No. 000112-000118. Mixson emailed DYS counsel later that day stating that ADAP would agree to postpone its Chalkville monitoring to March 28t11• See Doc. No. 000129. Mixson followed-up in writing with DYS cotmsel to the same effect on March 22rd and March 26t11• See Doc. No. 000130-000131.
9

Case 2:07-cv-00434-MHT-SRW Document 64 Filed 03/17/08 Page 10 of 22
32. Mixson and Jolmson an·ived at Chalkville for their second monitoring visit on March 28, 2007. They met with Ms. Tate, a DYS employee, about the purpose of the monitoring visit. Mixson and Jolmson informed Ms. Tate they had arranged with DYS counsel to communicate with residents residing in the Cherokee Unit and to conduct follow-up interviews with J.C., B.P. and S.B. Mixson and Jolmson informed Ms. Tate that ADAP intended to provide ADAP contact and service information to residents in the Cherokee unit and to speak privately with Cherokee residents about their treatment at Chalkville. See Doc. No. 000112-000126.
33. Ms. Tate infom1ed_Mixson and Johnson that Chalkville Director Yolanda Byrdsong had instructed her to deny ADAP access to speak with any Chalkville residents other than J.C., B.P. and S.B., and those other residents who have a disability. See Doc. No. 000112-000126.
34. Mixson and Johnson explained to Ms. Tate that ADAP has federal access authority to conmmnicate privately with any resident of Chalkville and that ADAP planned the March 28th monitoring visit to speak with Chalkville residents who did not have an opportunity to meet and speak privately with them during their previous monitoring on March 6th. See Doc. No. 000112-000126.
35. Johnson contacted ADAP Attorney Anderson informing her of Ms. Tate's refusal to allow ADAP to speak privately with all residents of Chalkville. See Doc. No. 000119-000126. Anderson immediately faxed DYS counsel and Ms. Tate a letter reminding them of ADAP's access authority and included a copy of pertinent PAlMI regulations relating to P&A access for their review. See Doc. No. 000132-000135.
36. Following Mixson and Jolmson's confidential interviews with J.C., B.P. and S.B., Mixson and Jolmson restated to Ms. Tate they intended to exercise ADAP's federal access authority
10

Case 2:07-cv-00434-MHT-SRW Document 64 Filed 03/17/08 Page 11 of 22
to communicate privately with other Chalkville residents. Ms. Tate informed Mixson and Johnson that DYS counsel instructed her to deny ADAP's access to speak privately with any DYS resident unless that resident had a disability. Ms. Tate informed Mixson and Jolmson that they would only be permitted to make a general announcement about ADAP and to distribute brochures to residents on the Cherokee Unit. Mixson and Jolmson again explained to Ms. Tate that the PAIMI Act access provisions provide ADAP the authority to communicate privately with any resident of Chalkville regardless of whether they are a current client of ADAP or have a disability. See Doc. No. 000112-000126. 37. Mixson and JohnsC?n were accompanied by Ms. Tate to the Cherokee Unit, where Mixson and Johnson distributed brochures and made a general announcement about ADAP's services. During Mixson's rumouncement, Ms. Tate inten·upted ru1d stated to the assembled residents that they must have a disability before they could receive assistance from ADAP. Johnson then clarified that any resident could speak privately with ADAP representatives and that ADAP has the authority to determine whether a resident has a disability. See Doc. No. 000112-000126. 38. After the Joint Report of the Parties (Doc. No. 17) was filed on October 19, 2007, the Defendru1t communicated to Plaintiff that it would no longer allow Plaintiff's staff members to communicate privately with DYS residents during Plaintiffs monitoring activities. Defendant's change in policy was communicated upon the arrival of ADAP employees at the Defendant's Chalkville facility on October 23, 2007, for a monitoring visit that had been scheduled in advance. See Doc. No. 000016-000018. Upon arriving at Chalkville on October 23, 2007, ADAP attomey, Andrea Mixson, was instructed by Chalkville case manager Naren Phillips that ADAP staff members would not be allowed to commw1icate privately with any
11

Case 2:07-cv-00434-MHT-SRW Document 64 Filed 03/17/08 Page 12 of 22
Chalkville resident during the ADAP monitoring visit scheduled for that day. When Ms. Mixson asked Ms. Phillips why ADAP would not be allowed to speak privately with individual residents who might request such an opportunity, Ms. Phillips stated that Chalkville staff received instructions from DYS counsel, Mr. Pen·y that private discussions between ADAP staff and DYS residents were not allowed during ADAP monitoring activities. Ms. Phillips stated DYS staff did not know which DYS residents qualify for ADAP's services and that DYS residents would be allowed to write ADAP to express their concerns. See Doc. No. 000016-000018. Defendant has not has not provided, as required under 42 C.P.R. 51.~3, a written statement as to why it has refused to provide ADAP with the opportunity to speak privately with Chalkville residents on October 23, 2007. 39. Defendant has utilized its Special Investigator to question ADAP clients before and debrief ADAP clients after confidential discussions between ADAP and its clients, S.L., C.L. and B.Y.. Defendant's practice of questioning and electronically recording the statements of ADAP's clients before and after confidential conversations between ADAP and its clients may have a chilling effect on current and future DYS residents who wish to communicate confidentially their concerns regarding abuse and neglect at DYS facilities to ADAP staff. On November 16, 2007, Plaintiff received a handwritten statement from S.L. stating that a man can1e out to Chalkville and asked her questions about her reports of abuse while at Chalkville. S.L. states. in her note that the man "was asking me very strange questions like if I were being sexually abused or physically abused in any way. S.L. states that "I felt like I was being forced to tell him what was going on." See Exhibit A. On November 16, 2007, Plaintiff received a handwritten statement from C.L. stating that a man came out to Chalkville and asked her questions about her reports of abuse while at Chalkville. C.L. writes
12

Case 2:07-cv-00434-MHT-SRW Document 64 Filed 03/17/08 Page 13 of 22
that "As he question [sic] me he put it on videotape [sic]. I didn't know it was something he suppose to do so that why I'm contacting you." See Exhibit B. On November 16, 2007, Plaintiff received a handwritten statement from B.Y. stating that a man came out to Chalkville and asked her questions about her reports of abuse while at Chalkville. B.Y. states that the man intended to videotape her answers to his questions, but she told him that she "did not want to answer any of his questions." See Exhibit C.
Vacca 40. On March 27, 2007, Jolmson sent DYS counsel written notice that Mixson and Johnson
planned to monitm: the Vacca campus on Tuesday, April lOth. See Doc. No. 000136. Johnson reminded DYS counsel that ADAP possesses federal access authority to conduct unaccompanied monitoring activities of DYS facilities "for the purposes of: 1) providing information and training on programs addressing the needs of individuals with mental illness, individual rights, and the protection and advocacy services available from ADAP; 2) monitoring compliance with respect to the rights and safety of residents; and 3) viewing and photographing all areas of the facility which are used by residents or are accessible to residents." 42 U.S.C. §10805; 42 C.F.R. § 51.42(c). 41. DYS counsel did not respond to Jolmson's March 2t11 CO!Tespondence or to Attorney Anderson's March 30111 correspondence to the same effect. See Doc. No. 000136. 42. Upon aniving at Vacca on April 10111 for the scheduled monitoring, Ms. Delbridge informed Jolmson and Mixson that DYS cow1sel had instructed her to prohibit ADAP from communicating with any resident or distributing any ADAP brochures or business cards to any resident w1less they were currently ADAP's clients. Ms. Delbridge also informed Jolmson and Mixson that ADAP's facility access was to be limited to an accompanied tour of
13

Case 2:07-cv-00434-MHT-SRW Document 64 Filed 03/17/08 Page 14 of 22
the Vacca grounds and buildings that was to be conducted by a security guard. See Doc. No. 000112-000126. 43. After the Joint Report of the Parties (Doc. No. 17) was filed on October 19, 2007, the Defendant communicated to Plaintiff that it would no longer allow Plaintiff's staff members to communicate privately with DYS residents during Plaintiff's monitoring activities. Defendant's change in policy was communicated upon the arrival of ADAP at the Defendant's Vacca facility on October 23, 2007, for a monitoring visit that had been scheduled in advance. On October 23, 2007, ADAP staff member, Christy Jolmson, arrived at Vacca for a mof!,itoring visit arranged through Mr. Perry' s office on October 14, 2007. Vacca employee, Linda Norwood, informed Ms. Johnson that DYS staff had met recently with Mr. Perry in Montgomery. Mr. Perry instructed DYS staff at the Montgomery meeting to prohibit ADAP staff from commtmicating privately with any DYS residents during ADAP's monitoring visits. Ms. Norwood stated that, upon Mr. Perry's instruction, ADAP staff members were allowed only to make a presentation to residents, pass out infom1ation and collect the names of residents with whom they wished to meet at a later date. See Doc. No. 000019-000020.
Mt. Meigs 44. On March 5 and April 6, 2007, Mixson notified DYS counsel in writing that ADAP plrumed
to conduct monitoring activities at the Mt. Meigs facility on April 17, 2007. See Doc. No. 000137-000138. Consistent with previous correspondence from ADAP on this matter, Mixson reminded DYS counsel that ADAP possesses federal access authority to conduct w1accompanied monitoring activities of DYS facilities "for the purposes of 1) providing infonnation and training on programs addressing the needs of individuals with mental illness,
14

Case 2:07-cv-00434-MHT-SRW Document 64 Filed 03/17/08 Page 15 of 22
individual rights, and the protection and advocacy services available from ADAP; 2) monitoring compliance with respect to the rights and safety of residents; and 3) viewing and photographing all areas of the facility which are used by residents or are accessible to residents." 42 U.S.C. § 10805; 42 C.P.R.§ 51.42(c). 45. Mixson and Johnson aiTived at the Mt. Meigs facility on April 17th. Mixson and Jolmson infonned the security guard that they were ADAP employees and had arranged a monitoring with DYS counsel. The guard stated that DYS counsel had not notified him of ADAP's monitoring and that he could not pem1it them to conduct monitoring activities at Mt. Meigs. See Doc. No. 000112-000126. 46. Mixson and Jolmson then spoke with Ms. Phyllis Carney, administrative assistant to DYS counsel, who stated that ADAP was only permitted an accompanied tour of the facility and could not speak with residents or distribute infom1ation about ADAP. Mixson explained that ADAP's federal access authority authorized Mixson and Jolmson to communicate privately with residents, distribute ADAP information, and have unaccompanied access to the facility, and provided the assistant with a copy of Anderson's March 28th letter to DYS counsel, describing ADAP 's federal access authority. See Doc. No. 000112-000126. 47. After she contacted DYS counsel, Ms. Carney informed Mixson that cotmsel denied ADAP access to speak with residents other than cunent ADAP clients and denied ADAP access to distribute ADAP information to any resident. The assistant also declared that Mixson and Jolmson would be required to be accompanied at all times on Mt. Meigs grounds by a DYS employee. See Doc. No. 000112-000126.
15

Case 2:07-cv-00434-MHT-SRW Document 64 Filed 03/17/08 Page 16 of 22
Requestfor D.R.'s Record 48. On March 5, 2007, Jolmson provided DYS Counsel with notice that Vacca resident, D.R.
was suffering mistreatment and verbal abuse by Vacca staff. See Doc. No. 000139. ADAP had received a letter from D.R. reporting abuse by staff. See Doc. No. 000140-000141. 49. On April4, 2007, Johnson learned from D.R.'s case manager, Patricia Henderson, that D.R. had been hospitalized at Children's Hospital in Birmingham for elevated blood levels and a possible self-administered medication overdose. Later on April 41h, Jolmson reviewed D.R. ' s DYS case file at the Vacca campus and requested a copy of it from Vacca Administrator Delbridge. Ms. Del_bridge infonned Jolmson that a copy ofD.R. 's record would be available for Jolmson on ADAP' s April 10 2007 monitoring visit to Vacca. See Doc. No. 000119000126. 50. On April10, 2007, Jolmson met with Ms. Delbridge and reminded her that ADAP requested copies ofD.R.'s records on April4, 2007 and that she had stated she would provide copies of those records to Jolmson during the scheduled April 10th Vacca monitoring. Ms. Delbridge replied that she would not provide ADAP with copies of D.R. ' s record until D.R. was released from the hospital and had signed an authorization for release of records. See Doc. No. 000112-000126. 51. On June 25, 2007 Defendant provided ADAP with a portion ofD.R. ' s DYS record. 52. As of March 7, 2008, Defendant has refused to provide ADAP with the complete record of ADAP client D.R., including investigative findings regarding D.R., nor provided ADAP with a written explanation as to why it has refused to provide them, as required under 42 C.F.R. § 51.43 .
16

Case 2:07-cv-00434-MHT-SRW Document 64 Filed 03/17/08 Page 17 of 22
Requestfor C.L. 's Record 53. Defendant has refused to provide Plaintiff with the entire record of ADAP client, C.L..
Defendant has not provided ADAP with the electronically recorded statement of C.L. created by DYS Special Investigator or any other DYS employee, nor any doctm1entation regarding an interview of C.L. by DYS Special Investigator or any other DYS employee. In a September 4, 2007 email to DYS, ADAP asserted probable cause to believe that Chalkville resident C.L., suffered abuse and neglect at Chalkville. See Exhibit D. In the same email, ADAP requested the complete DYS file of C.L. including incident reports and investigative findings. On Septe_mber 24, 2007, ADAP emailed Defendant again requesting the complete record of C.L.. See Exhibit D. As of the date of this filing, Defendant has not produced the complete record of C.L. including all incident reports, investigative findings, and electronic recordings of C.L. 's statements to DYS employees, investigators, or any outside agency charged with investigating abuse and neglect in DYS facilities, nor provided ADAP with a written explanation as to why it has refused to provide them, as required tmder 42 C.F.R. § 51.43 -- five months after ADAP first requested them.
Requestsfor Incident Reports aud Investigative Findings 54. On November 29, 2006, ADAP sent a written request for the DYS incident reports and
investigative findings regarding three clients, W.B., H.M. and K.W, male residents of Vacca and Mt. Meigs whom ADAP had probable cause to believe suffered abuse or neglect while in DYS custody. See Doc. No. 000142-000143. On April 20, 2007, ADAP again made a written request that these reports be forwarded to ADAP. See Doc. No. 000144-000145. As of the date of this filing, DYS has neither provided ADAP copies of the incident reports and investigatory findings regarding these three clients, as required under 42 C.F.R. § 51.42, nor
17

Case 2:07-cv-00434-MHT-SRW Document 64 Filed 03/17/08 Page 18 of 22
provided ADAP with a written explanation as to why it has refused to provide them, as required under42 C.F.R. § 51.43. 55. On April 20, 2007, ADAP sent a written request for cop1es of incident reports and investigative findings prepared by DYS regarding J.C., B.P. and S.B., residents at Chalkville whom ADAP had probable cause to believe suffered abuse or neglect while in DYS custody. See Doc. No. 000144-000145. As ofthe date of this filing, DYS has neither provided ADAP copies of the incident reports and investigatory findings regarding these three clients, as required tmder 42 C.F.R. § 51.42, nor provided ADAP with a written explanation as to why it has refused to provi~e them, as required under 42 C.F.R. § 51.43. 56. On April 20, 2007, ADAP sent a written request for copies of all investigative reports prepared by any agency charged with investigating abuse or neglect, or injury occurring at Vacca, Chalkville and Mt. Meigs within the last 6 months. ADAP requested that these reports be forwarded to ADAP by May 4, 2007. See Doc. No. 000144-000145. As of the date of this filing, DYS has neither provided ADAP copies of the requested incident reports and investigatory findings, as required tmder, 42 C.F.R. § 51.42, nor provided ADAP an explanation as to why it has refused to provide them, as required under 42 C.F.R. § 51.43. 57. Defendant has engaged in extreme delay in providing the complete record of S.L.. Defendant has not provided ADAP with the electronically recorded statement of S.L. created by DYS Special Investigator or any other DYS employee, nor any documentation regarding an interview of S.L. by DYS Special Investigator or any other DYS employee. In a September 4, 2007 email to DYS, ADAP asserted probable cause to believe that Chalkville resident, S.L., suffered abuse and neglect at Chalkville. See Exhibit D. Within this same email, ADAP requested the complete DYS file of S.L., including incident reports and
18

Case 2:07-cv-00434-MHT-SRW Document 64 Filed 03/17/08 Page 19 of 22
investigative findings. On September 24, 2007, Plaintiffs counsel sent a letter to Defendant's counsel requesting written investigative findings after S.L. rep01ied another incident of abuse while at Chalkville. See Exhibit E. On September 24, 2007, ADAP emailed Defendant again requesting the complete record of S.L. See Exhibit D. On December 11, 2007, ADAP wrote Defendant notifying him of another incident of abuse S.L. rep01ied at Chalkville. See Exhibit F. As of December I I, 2007, Defendant had failed to provide Plaintiff with any of S.L. Chalkville records which ADAP had requested on September 4, 2007 and September 24, 2007. Defendant hand delivered to ADAP S.L. 's records in Decem~er, 2008, three months after ADAP first made its written request. However, Defendant has not provided a written statement as required under 42. C.F.R. 51.43, as to why it has not produced all requested investigative findings regarding S.L.. 58. Defendant has engaged in extreme delay in providing the complete record ofB.Y. Defendant has not provided ADAP with the electronically recorded statement of B.Y. created by DYS Special Investigator or any other DYS employee, nor any doctunentation regarding an interview of B.Y. by DYS Special Investigator or any other DYS employee. In a September 4, 2007, email to DYS, ADAP asserted probable cause to believe that Chalkville resident, B.Y., suffered abuse and neglect at Chalkville. See Exhibit D. In this san1e email, ADAP requested the complete DYS file of B.Y. including all incident reports and investigative findings. As of this writing, ADAP has not received all requested incident reports and investigative findings regarding B.Y.. Defendant has not provided, as required under 42 C.F.R. 51.43, a written statement as to why it has refused to provide ADAP with all requested investigative findings regarding B.Y.
I9

Case 2:07-cv-00434-MHT-SRW Document 64 Filed 03/17/08 Page 20 of 22
59. Plaintiff does not have an adequate remedy at law and will be irreparably harmed if the Defendant is pennitted to continue prohibiting ADAP from: a) having reasonable unaccompanied access, for monitoring and investigatory purposes, to public and private areas ofDYS facilities; b) interviewing facility service recipients, staff and other persons as part of abuse and neglect investigations when ADAP has probable cause to believe an incident has occurred; c) providing information and training about individual rights and services provided by the P&A system; d) communicating privately with facility residents; e) accessing facility incident reports, investigatory findings; and records; and f) accessing residents' records. CAUSE OF ACTION
60. The policies, procedures, regulations, practices and customs of the Defendant, acting under color of law, violate and continue to violate the rights of the Plaintiff to full, complete, prompt access to DYS facilities, staff, residents and records, in violation of the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act of 1986,42 U.S.C. §§ 10801 et seq., and its implementing regulations at 42 C.F.R. §§ 51.1 et seq.; the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill ofRights Act of2000, 42 U.S.C. §§ 15001 et seq., and its implementing regulations at 45 C.F.R. §§ 1385 et seq.; the Protection and Advocacy oflndividual Rights Program, 29 U.S.C., §§ 794e, et seq. and its implementing regulations at 34 C.F.R. §§ 381.1 et seg.; and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
20

Case 2:07-cv-00434-MHT-SRW Document 64 Filed 03/17/08 Page 21 of 22
PRAYER FOR RELIEF 61 . Wherefore, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Comt:
a) Grant injunctive relief enjoining the Defendant and his agents and employees from denying ADAP full, complete, timely access to DYS residents, facilities and facility staff to conduct monitoring activities and abuse and neglect investigations as well as full, complete, timely access to records, including those of ADAP client D.R.;
b) Issue a declaratory judgment that the Defendant's polices, regulations, and practices of denying ADAP full, complete and timely access to DYS residents, facilities, facility staff and records to monitor and to conduct abuse and neglect investigations violate the PAlMI, PADD and PAIR Acts;
c) Award Plaintiff reasonably necessary attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2202 and 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and
d) Award such other and fmther relief to which Plaintiff is justly entitled, at law or equity.
Respectfully Submitted this 1i 11 day of March, 2008
Is/ Nancy E. Anderson
Nancy E. Anderson AL Bar No: ASB-3738-R67N E-mail: nanderso@adap.ua.edu James Tucker AL Bar No. ASB-6986-T39J E-Mail: jtucker@adap.ua.edu Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program Box 870395 Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0395 Telephone: (205) 348-4928 Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
21

Case 2:07-cv-00434-MHT-SRW Document 64 Filed 03/17/08 Page 22 of 22
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on tllis 1i 11 day of March, 2008, I electronically filed the
foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CMIECF system that will send notice of such fi ling to tl1e following attorney of record for the Defendant:
Mr. T. Dudley Perry, Jr. General Counsel Alabama Department of Youth Services PO Box 66 Mount Meigs, AL 3605_7-0066
Ms. Sancha E. Teele, Esq. Alabama Department of Youth Services PO Box 66 Mount Meigs, AL 36057-0066
Is/ Nancy E. Anderson Nancy E. Anderson AL Bar No: ASB-3738-R67N E-mail: nanderso@adap.ua.edu Jan1es Tucker AL Bar No. ASB-6986-T39J E-Mail: jtucker@adap.ua.edu Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program Box 870395 Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0395 Telephone: (205) 348-4928 Facsimile: (205) 348-3909
22

 
 Case: 2:07-cv-434 As of: 09/15/2012 01:53 PM CDT 1 of 8
CLOSED,MHT−ClerkB
U.S. District Court Alabama Middle District (Montgomery) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:07−cv−00434−MHT−SRW

Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program v. Wood Assigned to: Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson Referred to: Honorable Judge Susan Russ Walker Cause: 42:10801 Protection &Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act of 1986 ("PAIMI Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 05/16/2007 Date Terminated: 04/30/2008 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program

represented by James Arnold Tucker Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program P. O. Box 870395 Tuscaloosa, AL 35487−0395 205−348−4928 Fax: 205−348−3909 Email: jtucker@adap.ua.edu LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nancy Ellen Anderson Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program P O Box 870395 Tuscaloosa, AL 35487−0395 205−348−4928 Fax: 205−348−3909 Email: nanderso@adap.ua.edu LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Patrick Hackney Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program P. O. Box 870395 Tuscaloosa, AL 35487−0395 205−348−4928 Fax: 205−348−3909 Email: jphackney@adap.ua.edu ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
J. Walter Wood, Jr. in his official Capacity as Executive Director of the Alabama Department of Youth Services

represented by Sancha O Epiphane Howard Alabama Department of Youth Services Legal Division PO Box 66 Mt. Meigs, AL 36057 334−215−3803 Fax: 334−215−3872 Email: sancha.howard@dys.alabama.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thornton Dudley Perry , Jr. Alabama Department of Youth Services PO Box 66 Mt. Meigs, AL 36057 334−215−3803 Fax: 334−215−3872 Email: dudley.perry@dys.alabama.gov

Case: 2:07-cv-434 As of: 09/15/2012 01:53 PM CDT 2 of 8
LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 05/16/2007
05/18/2007 05/24/2007 05/30/2007 06/06/2007
06/13/2007 06/14/2007 06/14/2007 09/10/2007 09/11/2007 09/11/2007 09/14/2007 09/14/2007 09/18/2007 09/19/2007

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against J. Walter Wood, Jr (Filing fee $ 350.00 receipt number 183.), filed by Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits# 2 Exhibit A1# 3 Exhibit A2# 4 Exhibit A3# 5 Exhibit B1# 6 Exhibit B2# 7 Exhibit B3# 8 Exhibit B4# 9 Exhibit B5# 10 Exhibit B6# 11 Exhibit C# 12 Exhibit D# 13 Exhibit E# 14 Exhibit F# 15 Exhibit G# 16 Exhibit H# 17 Exhibit I# 18 Exhibit J# 19 Exhibit K1# 20 Exhibit K2# 21 Exhibit L# 22 Exhibit M# 23 Exhibit N# 24 Exhibit O)(cc, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 11/2/2007 to substitute Exhibit B2 pursuant to 20 Order (wcl, ). (Entered: 05/18/2007)
2 Summons Issued; summons and complaint mailed by CMRRR to J. Walter Wood, Jr. (cc, ) (Entered: 05/18/2007)
3 Case reassigned to Judge Myron H. Thompson. Judge Mark E. Fuller no longer assigned to the case. (cc, ) (Entered: 05/24/2007)
4 Return Receipt Card showing service of Summons and complaint signed by Karen Gates for J. Walter Wood, Jr served on 5/29/2007, answer due 6/18/2007. (wcl, ) (Entered: 05/30/2007)
5 ORDER setting an on−the−record Status Conference for 6/13/2007 10:00 AM in chambers 200FMJ, FMJFCC, Montgomery, Al. before Honorable Myron H. Thompson; further ORDERING that the Hon. Thornton Dudley Perry, Jr., who served as consel for the def in the previous case (MD AL CA# 2:05cv1030−MHT), shall be present; directing the Clerk to notify Mr. Perry of this order by electronic notice, by fax, and by telephone, using his contact information from the docket in CA# 2:05cv1030−MHT. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 6/6/07. Sent to Mr. Perry via the means specified in order.(djy, ) (Entered: 06/06/2007)
6 Minute Entry for Status Conference held before Judge Myron H. Thompson on 6/13/2007 (PDF available for court use only). (Court Reporter Mitchell Reisner.) (ag, ) (Entered: 06/13/2007)
7 ORDER that defendant is allowed until 9/10/2007 to file a response to the complaint. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 6/14/2007. (dmn) (Entered: 06/14/2007)
Reset Answer Deadline for J. Walter Wood, Jr. to 9/10/2007. (dmn) (see Doc. 7 for pdf) (Entered: 06/14/2007)
8 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply by J. Walter Wood, Jr. (Perry, Thornton) (Entered: 09/10/2007)
9 Notice of Deficiency requiring filing of Corporate Disclosure/Conflict Statement sent to all parties; Corporate Disclosures due by 9/25/2007. (Attachments: # 1 Corporate/Conflict Attachment)(wcl, ) (Entered: 09/11/2007)
10 Corporate/Conflict Disclosure Statement by J. Walter Wood, Jr. (Perry, Thornton) (Entered: 09/11/2007)
11 ORDER granting 8 Motion for Extension; Dft is allowed until 9/18/2007, to file a response to the complaint. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 9/14/2007. (wcl, ) (Entered: 09/14/2007)
12 Corporate/Conflict Disclosure Statement by Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program re 9 Notice of Deficiency requiring filing of Corporate Disclosure/Conflict Statement. (Anderson, Nancy) (Entered: 09/14/2007)
13 ANSWER to Complaint by J. Walter Wood, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit)(Perry, Thornton) (Entered: 09/18/2007)
14 ORDER directing that this cause is set for an on−the−record Status Conference on 10/10/2007, at 09:00 AM, to discuss setting this case for trial as soon as possible, before Honorable Myron H. Thompson; Counsel for plf are to arrange for the

Case: 2:07-cv-434 As of: 09/15/2012 01:53 PM CDT 3 of 8

10/10/2007 10/10/2007
10/19/2007 10/31/2007 11/01/2007 11/02/2007 11/02/2007
11/02/2007 11/05/2007 11/06/2007 11/06/2007
11/06/2007
11/07/2007 11/07/2007

conference to be conducted by telephone. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 9/19/2007. (furn: yg, hc, ag)(wcl, ) (Entered: 09/19/2007)
15 Minute Entry for Status Conference held before Judge Myron H. Thompson on 10/10/2007 (PDF available for court use only). (Court Reporter Mitchell Reisner.) (ag, ) (Entered: 10/10/2007)
16 ORDER directing as follows: (1) This lawsuit is set for final Submission, without oral argument, on 12/7/2007; (2) By 10/19/2007, the parties are to file a joint report indicating what issue or issues, if any, remain in this case. If no issues remain unresolved, this case will be considered settled. If there are unresolved issues, the parties are to comply with the remainder of this order, as further set out in order. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 10/10/2007. (wcl, ) (Entered: 10/10/2007)
17 Response to Order Joint Report of the Parties by Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program. (Tucker, James) (Entered: 10/19/2007)
18 First MOTION to Amend/Correct 17 Response to Order Plaintiff's Motion to Amend The Joint Report of the Parties by Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Email Correspondence# 2 Affidavit Andrea Mixson# 3 Affidavit Christy Johnson)(Tucker, James) (Entered: 10/31/2007)
19 MOTION to Substitute re 1 Complaint,, by Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program. (Attachments: # 1 Correctly Redacted Plaintiff's Exhibit B2)(Anderson, Nancy) (Entered: 11/01/2007)
20 ORDER granting 19 Motion to Substitute. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 11/2/2007. (wcl, ) (Entered: 11/02/2007)
21 ORDER directing that plf's 18 MOTION to Amend The Joint Report of the Parties is set for on−the−record Oral Argument on 11/7/2007, at 10:00 AM in by telephone before Honorable Myron H. Thompson; Counsel for plf is to arrange for the argument to be conducted by telephone; further ORDERED that dft is to file a response to the motion by 11/6/2007. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 11/2/2007. (furn: yg, hc, ag, sc)(wcl, ) (Entered: 11/02/2007)
22 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Joint Submission of the Record by Thornton Dudley Perry, Jr, J. Walter Wood, Jr. (Perry, Thornton) (Entered: 11/02/2007)
23 ORDER granting 22 Motion for Extension. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 11/5/2007. (wcl, ) (Entered: 11/05/2007)
24 Response to Order Defendant's Proposed Submissions to the Record by Thornton Dudley Perry, Jr, J. Walter Wood, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Document 146 ghrough 158)(Perry, Thornton) (Entered: 11/06/2007)
25 Evidentiary Submission re 16 Order,, Set Deadlines, Plaintiff's Submission of Proposed Record filed by Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment 1# 2 Attachment 2# 3 Attachment 3# 4 Attachment 4# 5 Attachment 5# 6 Attachment 6# 7 Attachment 7# 8 Attachment 8# 9 Attachment 9)(Tucker, James) (Entered: 11/06/2007)
26 RESPONSE to Motion re 18 First MOTION to Amend/Correct 17 Response to Order Plaintiff's Motion to Amend The Joint Report of the PartiesFirst MOTION to Amend/Correct 17 Response to Order Plaintiff's Motion to Amend The Joint Report of the Parties filed by J. Walter Wood, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Substituted Exhibit 1)(Perry, Thornton) Additional attachment(s) added on 11/8/2007 to substitue Exhibit 1 pursuant to 29 Order (wcl, ). (Entered: 11/06/2007)
27 MOTION to Substitute Exhibit 1 of Document 26 by J. Walter Wood, Jr. (Attachments: # 1)(Perry, Thornton) (Entered: 11/07/2007)
28 Minute Entry for Oral Argument re 18 Motion to Amend the Joint Report of the Parties held before Judge Myron H. Thompson on 11/7/2007 (PDF available for court use only). (Court Reporter Mitchell Reisner.) (ag, ) (Entered: 11/07/2007)

Case: 2:07-cv-434 As of: 09/15/2012 01:53 PM CDT 4 of 8

11/08/2007 11/08/2007
11/21/2007 11/27/2007 11/27/2007 11/27/2007
11/27/2007 12/07/2007 12/11/2007
12/17/2007 12/17/2007 12/18/2007 12/18/2007 01/10/2008

29 ORDER granting 27 Motion to Substitute Document. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 11/8/2007. (wcl, ) (Entered: 11/08/2007)
30 ORDERED that the 18 MOTION to Amend Joint Report of the Parties is granted as follows: (1) By 11/21/2007, the parties are to file a supplemental joint reportas further set out in order; (2) Another on−the−record Status Conference is set for 11/27/2007, at 01:00 PM before Honorable Myron H. Thompson. Counsel for plf is to arrange for the conference to be conducted by telephone; (3) The remaining deadlines in the final−submission order (Doc. No. 16 ) are suspended. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 11/8/2007. (furn: yg, hc, ag, sc)(wcl, ) (Entered: 11/08/2007)
31 Response to Order re 30 Order,,, Terminate Motions,,, Set Hearings,,, Terminate Deadlines,, Supplemental Joint Report of the Parties by Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program. (Tucker, James) (Entered: 11/21/2007)
32 ORDER directing that the Rule 26(f) report containing the discovery plan shall be filed as soon as practicable, as further set out in order; Rule 26 Meeting Report due by 12/7/2007. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 11/27/2007. (wcl, ) (Entered: 11/27/2007)
33 ORDER directing that the Final Pretrial Conference is set for 3/14/2008, at 09:00 AM before Honorable Myron H. Thompson and the Non−Jury Trial is set for 4/16/2008, at 10:00 AM before Honorable Myron H. Thompson. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 11/27/2007. (furn: yg, hc, ag, sc)(wcl, ) (Entered: 11/27/2007)
34 ORDER setting Final Pretrial Conference for 3/14/2008, at 09:00 AM in chambers before Honorable Myron H. Thompson; the parties are DIRECTED to prepare JOINTLY a Proposed Pretrial Order due by 3/18/2008; Non−Jury Trial set for 4/16/2008, at 10:00 AM in Montgomery, AL before Honorable Myron H. Thompson. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 11/27/2007. (furn: yg, hc, ag, sc)(wcl, ) (Entered: 11/27/2007)
35 Minute Entry for On−The−Record Status Conference held before Judge Myron H. Thompson on 11/27/2007 (PDF available for court use only). (Court Reporter Mitchell Reisner.) (ag, ) (Entered: 11/27/2007)
36 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. (Tucker, James) (Entered: 12/07/2007)
37 SCHEDULING ORDER setting Final Pretrial Conference for 3/14/2008 before Honorable Myron H. Thompson; Non−Jury Trial set for 4/16/2008 before Honorable Myron H. Thompson; setting Amended Pleadings due by plf on or before 1/14/2008, and by dft on or before 1/14/2008; setting Discovery due by 2/14/2008; setting Dispositive Motions due by 12/15/2007; setting Mediation Notice due by 1/10/2008, as further set out in order. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 12/11/2007. (furn: yg, hc, ag, sc)(wcl, ) (Entered: 12/11/2007)
38 MOTION for Summary Judgment Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment by Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program. (Tucker, James) (Entered: 12/17/2007)
39 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program. (Tucker, James) Modified on 12/18/2007 to add relationship to 38 Motion (wcl, ). (Entered: 12/17/2007)
NOTICE of Docket Text Correction re 39 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support to add relationship to 38 Motion. (NO PDF ATTACHTED) (wcl, ) (Entered: 12/18/2007)
40 ORDER directing that the 38 MOTION for Summary Judgment is set for submission, without oral argument, on 1/11/2008, with any opposing brief and evidentiary materials due by said date; Motion Submission Deadline set for 1/11/2008. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 12/18/2007. (wcl, ) (Entered: 12/18/2007)
41 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply by Thornton Dudley Perry, Jr. (Perry, Thornton) (Entered: 01/10/2008)

Case: 2:07-cv-434 As of: 09/15/2012 01:53 PM CDT 5 of 8

01/11/2008 01/11/2008 01/14/2008 01/14/2008 01/15/2008 01/18/2008 01/22/2008 01/25/2008 01/29/2008 01/30/2008 02/06/2008 02/13/2008
03/07/2008 03/07/2008 03/07/2008 03/10/2008

42 Notice of Mediation and Settlement Conference by Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program (Tucker, James) (Entered: 01/11/2008)
43 ORDER granting 41 Motion for Extension. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 1/11/2008. (wcl, ) (Entered: 01/11/2008)
44 MOTION for Leave to File Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint by Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program. (Tucker, James) (Entered: 01/14/2008)
45 AMENDED COMPLAINT For Injunctive and Declaratory Relief against all defendants, filed by Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit E# 6 Exhibit F)(Tucker, James) (Entered: 01/14/2008)
46 ORDER granting 44 Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint, as further set out in order. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 1/15/2008. (wcl, ) (Entered: 01/15/2008)
47 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Opposition to Plainitff's 38 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by J. Walter Wood, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of T. Dudley Perry, Jr.)(Perry, Thornton) Modified on 1/22/2008 to add relationship to 38 Motion (wcl, ). (Entered: 01/18/2008)
NOTICE of Docket Text Correction re 47 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Opposition, to add relationship to 38 Motion. (NO PDF ATTACHED) (wcl, ) (Entered: 01/22/2008)
48 Objection to re 44 MOTION for Leave to File Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint, 45 Amended Complaint, filed by J. Walter Wood, Jr. (Perry, Thornton) (Entered: 01/25/2008)
49 REPLY to Response to Motion re 44 MOTION for Leave to File Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Objection (Doc.#48) to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint filed by Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program. (Tucker, James) (Entered: 01/29/2008)
50 ORDER directing that the 48 Objection to Amendment is overruled. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 1/30/2008. (wcl, ) (Entered: 01/30/2008)
51 NOTICE of Appearance by Sancha Epiphane Teele on behalf of J. Walter Wood, Jr (Teele, Sancha) (Entered: 02/06/2008)
52 ORDER directing that this matter be and is hereby set for a Mediation Conference on 4/10/2008 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 5B before Honorable Susan Russ Walker; further ORDERED that counsel and the parties or a representative with full authority to settle the case shall appear at and attend this conference, as further set out in order; On or before the close of business on 4/7/2008, each party shall provide the undersigned judge with a confidential mediation conference statement, as further set out in order. Signed by Judge Susan Russ Walker on 2/13/2008. (furn: yg, hc, jt) (wcl, ) (Entered: 02/13/2008)
53 NOTICE of Appearance by James Patrick Hackney on behalf of Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program (Hackney, James) Additional attachment(s) added on 3/10/2008 to attach a corrected PDF document to include an electronic signature on the certificate of service page (wcl, ). (Entered: 03/07/2008)
54 MOTION for Leave to File Corrected Amended Complaint by Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Corrected Amended Complaint)(Anderson, Nancy) (Entered: 03/07/2008)
55 Joint MOTION for Extension of Deadline March 7, 2008 Witness &Exhibit List re 37 Scheduling Order, by Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program. (Anderson, Nancy) (Entered: 03/07/2008)
56 NOTICE of Correction re 53 Notice of Appearance, to attach a corrected PDF document to include an electronic signature on the certificate of service page. (Attachments: # 1 Corrected Main Document to Docket Entry 53 )(wcl, ) (Entered: 03/10/2008)

Case: 2:07-cv-434 As of: 09/15/2012 01:53 PM CDT 6 of 8

03/10/2008 03/12/2008 03/12/2008 03/14/2008 03/17/2008 03/17/2008 03/17/2008
03/17/2008 03/17/2008 03/17/2008 03/21/2008 04/10/2008 04/17/2008 04/30/2008
06/13/2008 06/13/2008

57 Notice of Mediation and Settlement Conference by Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program (Anderson, Nancy) (Entered: 03/10/2008)
58 ORDER directing that the 54 MOTION for Leave to File Corrected Amended Complaint is set for submission, without oral argument, on 3/19/2008, with all briefs due by said date; Motion Submission Deadline set for 3/19/2008. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 3/12/2008. (wcl, ) (Entered: 03/12/2008)
59 ORDER granting 55 Motion for Extension of Time to File Witness and Exhibit Lists. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 3/12/2008. (wcl, ) (Entered: 03/12/2008)
Minute Entry for Pretrial Conference before Judge Myron H. Thompson held on 3/14/2008 (PDF available for court use only). (ag, ) (Entered: 03/14/2008)
60 ORDER granting 54 Motion for Leave to File Corrected Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 3/17/2008. (wcl, ) (Entered: 03/17/2008)
61 ORDER denying 38 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 3/17/2008. (wcl, ) (Entered: 03/17/2008)
62 PRETRIAL ORDER resetting Non−Jury Trial of this cause, which is to last two days, for 5/8/2008, at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 2FMJ before Honorable Myron H. Thompson; The parties are to file a joint statement of stipulated facts by 4/18/2008; Plf's Trial Brief due by 4/23/2008, and dft's Trial Brief due by 5/2/2008; All deadlines not otherwise affected by this order will remain as set forth in the 37 Uniform Scheduling Order entered by the court on 12/11/2007, as further set out in order. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 3/17/2008. (furn: yg, hc, ag, sc) (wcl, ) (Entered: 03/17/2008)
63 Exhibit List Plaintiff's Witness and Exhibit List by Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program.. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment One# 2 Attachment Two# 3 Attachment Three# 4 Attachment Four# 5 Attachment Five# 6 Attachment Six)(Tucker, James) (Entered: 03/17/2008)
64 AMENDED COMPLAINT Plaintiff's Corrected Amended Complaint against J. Walter Wood, Jr, filed by Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit E# 6 Exhibit F)(Anderson, Nancy) (Entered: 03/17/2008)
Witness List by Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program. (NO PDF ATTACHED−SEE DOCKET ENTRY 63 )(wcl, ) (Entered: 03/18/2008)
65 Defendant's ANSWER to Amended Complaint Corrected Amended Complaint by J. Walter Wood, Jr.(Teele, Sancha) (Entered: 03/21/2008)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Honorable Susan Russ Walker: Mediation Conference held on 4/10/2008 (NO PDF attached). (ws, ) (Entered: 05/06/2008)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Honorable Susan Russ Walker: Mediation Conference held on 4/17/2008 (NO PDF Attached). (ws, ) (Entered: 05/06/2008)
66 JUDGMENT, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT, and DECREE of the court that this lawsuit is dismissed in its entirety with prejudice, with the parties to bear their own costs, as further set out in order; DIRECTING the clerk to enter this document on the civil docket as a final judgment pursuant to Rule 58 FRCP. Signed by Judge Honorable Myron H. Thompson on 4/30/2008. (Attachments: # 1 civil appeals checklist)(wcl, ) (Entered: 04/30/2008)
67 MOTION for Extension of Time to File stipulate dismissal terms by Thornton Dudley Perry, Jr, J. Walter Wood, Jr. (Perry, Thornton) (Entered: 06/13/2008)
68 ORDER granting 67 Motion for Extension of Time; The parties are allowed an additional 45 days to comply with the 66 Order entered on 4/30/2008. Signed by Honorable Myron H. Thompson on 6/13/2008. (wcl, ) (Entered: 06/13/2008)

Case: 2:07-cv-434 As of: 09/15/2012 01:53 PM CDT 7 of 8

07/28/2008 07/29/2008
07/31/2008 08/01/2008 08/12/2008 08/12/2008
08/22/2008 08/22/2008
08/26/2008 08/27/2008
09/05/2008 09/10/2008 09/10/2008

69 Joint MOTION for Settlement by Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program. (Attachments: # 1 Access Agreement)(Tucker, James) (Entered: 07/28/2008)
70 ORDER directing that the 69 Joint MOTION for Judicial Approval of Dismissal Terms is set for an on−the−record hearing; Motion Hearing set for 8/5/2008, at 10:00 AM by telephone before Honorable Myron H. Thompson; Counsel for dft is to arrange for the hearing to be conducted by telephone. Signed by Honorable Myron H. Thompson on 7/29/2008. (furn: yg, hc, ag, sc) (wcl, ) (Entered: 07/29/2008)
71 MOTION for Extension of Deadline re 69 Joint MOTION for Settlement, 70 Order Setting Hearing on Motion, to set hearing by J. Walter Wood, Jr. (Perry, Thornton) (Entered: 07/31/2008)
72 ORDER directing as follows: (1) granting 71 MOTION for Extension; (2) the on−the−record Hearing set for 8/5/08 is reset for 8/12/2008 10:00 AM before Honorable Myron H. Thompson; directing counsel for the defendant to arrange for the hearing to be conducted by telephone. Signed by Honorable Myron H. Thompson on 8/1/08. Furnished to YG, HC &AG.(djy, ) (Entered: 08/01/2008)
73 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Honorable Myron H. Thompson: Motion Hearing held on 8/12/2008 re 69 Joint MOTION for Settlement filed by Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program (PDF available for court use only). (Court Reporter Dee Coker.) (ag, ) (Entered: 08/12/2008)
74 ORDER directing as follows: (1) By 8/22/2008, the parties are to file a joint report on the issues raised by the court; (2) Another on−the−record hearing is set for 8/26/2008, at 10:00 a.m. Counsel for dft is to arrange for the hearing to be conducted by telephone; Motion Hearing set for 8/26/2008 at 10:00 AM by telephone before Honorable Myron H. Thompson. Signed by Honorable Myron H. Thompson on 8/12/2008. (furn: yg, hc, ag, sc)(wcl, ) (Entered: 08/12/2008)
75 STATUS REPORT Joint Report of the Parties by Thornton Dudley Perry, Jr, Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program, J. Walter Wood, Jr. (Perry, Thornton) (Entered: 08/22/2008)
76 TRANSCRIPT of Telephonic Hearing Proceedings for Joint Motion for Judicial Approval of Dismissal of Terms (PDF ACCESS RESTRICTED FOR 90 DAYS) held on 8/12/2008, before Judge Thompson. Court Reporter/Transcriber Dee Coker, Telephone number 334−263−0261. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. NOTICE OF INTENT TO REQUEST REDACTION DUE WITHIN 7 BUSINESS DAYS. Redaction Request due 9/12/2008. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/22/2008. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/20/2008. (wcl, ) (Entered: 08/22/2008)
77 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Honorable Myron H. Thompson: Status Conference held on 8/26/2008 (PDF available for court use only). (Court Reporter Mitchell Reisner.) (ag, ) (Entered: 08/26/2008)
78 ORDER directing as follows: (1) The parties are allowed until 9/5/2008, to file another joint motion for approval of settlement, with the proposed settlement attached; (2) The pending 69 Joint Motion for Approval of Dismissal Terms is denied without prejudice; (3) The court retains jurisdiction of this case pending action on the parties' anticipated proposed settlement. Signed by Honorable Myron H. Thompson on 8/27/2008. (wcl, ) (Entered: 08/27/2008)
79 Joint MOTION for Settlement by Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 Settlement Agreement &Protocol)(Tucker, James) (Entered: 09/05/2008)
80 OPINION. Signed by Honorable Myron H. Thompson on 9/10/08. (djy, ) (Entered: 09/10/2008)
81 JUDGMENT AND INJUNCTION, in accordance with the memorandum opinion, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT and DECREE of the court as follows: (1) the joint motion to adopt the settlement agreement and retain jurisdiction 79 is granted; (2)

Case: 2:07-cv-434 As of: 09/15/2012 01:53 PM CDT 8 of 8

09/10/2008

the settlement agreement, attached as an appendix to this judgment, is incorporated as the order of this Court; (3) In accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement, the court retains jurisdiction to enforce the agreement for a period of one year from the date of this judgment; and (4) Defendant J. Walter Wood, in his official capacity, and his officers, agents, servants, and employees, and those persons in active concert or participation with him who receive actual notice of this judgment and injunction by personal service or otherwise, is ENJOINED and RESTRAINED from failing to comply immediately with the terms of the settlement agreement; directing the clerk of the court to enter this document on the civil docket as a final judgment pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Honorable Myron H. Thompson on 9/10/08. (Attachments: # 1 Settlement agreement, # 2 civil appeals checklist)(djy, ) (Entered: 09/10/2008)
82 ORDER, pursuant to the Settlement agreement, it is ORDERED that def J. Walter Wood, in his official capacity as the Executive Director of the Alabama Dept of Youth Services, shall pay to plf Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program the sum of $20,500.00 for attorneys fees and costs. Signed by Honorable Myron H. Thompson on 9/10/08. (djy, ) (Entered: 09/10/2008)