UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

________________________________________

F.A., by and through his Next Friend, 

Freddie Sims; J.R., by and through his 

Next Friend, Bridget Foley; and W.M., 

by and through his Next Friend, Robert 

Link, individually, and on behalf of a 

class of all persons similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No.: 4:11-cv-00198-RS-WCS

MIKE HANSEN, in his official capacity 

as Acting Director of the Agency for 

Persons with Disabilities; SANDY KOON, 

in her official capacity as Superintendent of 

the Mentally Retarded Defendant Program; 

and KEVIN JACKSON, in his official 

capacity as clinical director of the Mentally 

Retarded Defendant Program,

Defendants.

________________________________________

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR 

DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. F.A., by and through his Next Friend, Freddie Sims; J.R., by and through his Next 

Friend, Bridget Foley; and W.M. by and through his Next Friend, Robert Link;

each individually, and on behalf of a class of all persons similarly situated, all of 

whom are involuntarily committed to the care and custody of the State of Florida, 

Agency for Persons with Disabilities (“APD”) and confined at the Mentally 

Case 4:11-cv-00198-RS-WCS Document 16 Filed 08/03/11 Page 1 of 23
2

Retarded Defendant Program (“MRDP”), pursuant to Chapter 916 of the Florida 

Statutes (“Chapter 916”), and all of whom allege they have been the victims of 

constitutionally inadequate treatment and conditions, seek declaratory and 

injunctive relief to enforce their right to constitutionally adequate treatment and 

conditions, as secured to them by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States 

Constitution. 

2. Defendants do not provide Plaintiffs, and all other similarly situated residents at 

MRDP, with constitutionally adequate treatment or training to address their 

mental health, adaptive, and behavioral needs. 

3. Defendants do not assess Plaintiffs’ individual and complex mental health needs 

to use in the development of individualized treatment modalities for each 

Plaintiff. Instead, Defendants create treatment plans (i.e., “support plans”) for 

Plaintiffs, and all other similarly situated residents at MRDP, that are generic in 

nature. Across residents, the support plans share identical treatment and training 

goals. MRDP does not individualize the treatment objectives to meet those goals. 

MRDP support plans are insufficient on their face, but, in practice, Defendants 

even fail to comply with their own generic treatment recommendations in treating 

Plaintiffs and others similarly situated.

4. The lack of adequate mental health, behavioral, and adaptive treatment and 

training results in the unnecessary and excessive use of seclusion and restraints, 

and impedes the ability of Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, to maintain or 

Case 4:11-cv-00198-RS-WCS Document 16 Filed 08/03/11 Page 2 of 23
3

improve their mental health as well as acquire or maintain adaptive functioning 

skills, including behavioral skills. 

5. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that Defendants’ policy and practice of 

inadequate treatment and training and the use of unnecessary bodily restraint and 

seclusion at MRDP violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth 

Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Plaintiffs also seek 

corresponding injunctive relief requiring the Defendants to cease their unlawful 

conduct and implement measures to prevent continuation of that conduct. Finally, 

the Plaintiffs seek their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1988.

JURISDICTION

6. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as this 

action arises under the Constitution and the laws of the United States, and 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3) as this action seeks redress for civil rights 

violations under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 & 1988. 

7. This Court has jurisdiction over claims seeking declaratory relief and injunctive 

relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 and Rules 57 and 65 of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure. 

VENUE

8. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 

3.1 because a substantial number of the events and omissions giving rise to 

Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in the District.

Case 4:11-cv-00198-RS-WCS Document 16 Filed 08/03/11 Page 3 of 23
4

PARTIES

PLAINTIFFS1

9. F.A. was involuntarily committed to APD for competency training on April 12, 

2011 after he was found incompetent to stand trial due to mental retardation. On 

April 19, 2011, F.A. was admitted to MRDP, where he is currently housed. 

F.A.’s claim is brought through his next friend and father, Freddie Sims. 

10. J.R. was involuntarily committed to APD for competency training on March 2, 

2009, after he was found incompetent to stand trial due to mental retardation. On 

December 10, 2010, J.R. was admitted to MRDP, where he is currently housed. 

J.R.’s claim is brought through his next friend and mother, Bridget Foley. 

11. W.M. was involuntarily committed to APD for competency training on April 1, 

2009 after he was found incompetent to stand trial due to mental retardation. On 

May 13, 2009, W.M. was admitted to MRDP, where he is currently housed. 

W.M.’s claim is brought through his next friend, Robert Link. 

DEFENDANTS

12. The Defendant, Mike Hansen, (“Hansen”) is the Acting Director of APD.2 APD 

is responsible for providing training and treatment to all persons involuntarily 

 

1

Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint does not include individual factual claims for 

named Plaintiffs, E.B. and F.U., because the individual factual claims of E.B. and F.U. 

have been voluntarily dismissed. A Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice as 

to the individual factual claims of E.B. and F.U. has been filed simultaneous to this 

complaint. Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint now contains individual factual claims 

for two new named Plaintiffs, J.R. and F.A. 

Case 4:11-cv-00198-RS-WCS Document 16 Filed 08/03/11 Page 4 of 23
5

committed pursuant to Part III of Chapter 916. Pursuant to Section 20.197 of the 

Florida Statutes, Hansen is responsible for the overall administration of the affairs 

of all APD operated facilities, including MRDP, and is responsible for final policy 

making decisions at APD. He is sued in his official capacity only. 

13. The Defendant, SANDY KOON, (“Koon”) is the Superintendent of MRDP. In 

that capacity, she exercises administrative control of and has responsibility for 

MRDP. Koon is responsible for the development, implementation, and oversight 

of all MRDP policies, practices, and procedures, including policies related to 

treatment programs and behavior management. She is sued in her official 

capacity only.

14. The Defendant, KEVIN JACKSON (“Jackson”), is the Clinical Director of 

MRDP. In that capacity he is responsible for administrative control and 

supervision of all clinical programs, including treatment programs and behavior 

management, at MRDP. He is sued in his official capacity only. 

15. At all times relevant to this First Amended Complaint, the Defendants were acting 

under color of state law.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 

16. This action is brought by the named Plaintiffs as a class action, pursuant to the 

provisions of Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for injunctive 

and declaratory relief on behalf of a class of all persons similarly situated.

 

2 On July 28, 2011, Mike Hansen was appointed by Governor Rick Scott as the Acting 

Director for APD. 

Case 4:11-cv-00198-RS-WCS Document 16 Filed 08/03/11 Page 5 of 23
6

17. The class of Plaintiffs consists of all persons who are or who will be confined to 

MRDP under Chapter 916.

18. The Plaintiff class is so numerous that joinder of all members would be 

impracticable. The population at MRDP currently exceeds sixty individuals.

19. Controlling issues of law and fact are common to all members of the Plaintiff 

class. The predominant issue is whether Defendants, or those acting under their 

control or direction, have violated and continue to violate the Due Process Clause 

of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution by failing to 

provide constitutionally adequate treatment and training for persons with 

developmental disabilities and, in lieu thereof, use unnecessary seclusion and 

restraint against those persons.

20. The claims of the individual Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of class members. 

All claims are based on the same factual and legal theories in that the Plaintiffs

have all been harmed by the unconstitutional practices alleged in this First 

Amended Complaint.

21. The named Plaintiffs, through their next friends, will fairly and adequately protect 

the interests of the members of the Plaintiff class. The named Plaintiffs have a 

strong personal interest in the outcome of this action and have no conflicts of 

interest with members of the Plaintiff class. The named Plaintiffs are all current 

residents of MRDP.

Case 4:11-cv-00198-RS-WCS Document 16 Filed 08/03/11 Page 6 of 23
7

22. The named Plaintiffs are represented by experienced counsel that specialize in 

class action litigation concerning conditions, practices, and treatment in 

institutions. 

23. The Defendants have acted on grounds generally applicable to the Plaintiffs’ class 

as a whole, thereby making appropriate final declaratory and injunctive relief with 

respect to the class as a whole. 

24. The Defendants’ customs, policies, and practices of failing to provide 

constitutionally adequate treatment and training for persons with developmental 

disabilities and, in lieu thereof, using unnecessary seclusion and bodily restraint 

against those persons necessitates injunctive relief directing Defendants to 

implement remedial measures.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

Overview of Commitment to MRDP Pursuant to Chapter 916

25. Only persons charged with felony crimes deemed competent to stand trial can 

proceed through the criminal system. In Florida, if the criminal court finds that a 

person is incompetent to stand trial, then the court can order that the person 

receive competency training. 

26. Chapter 916 provides the statutory framework for how the criminal court handles 

persons found incompetent to stand trial in Florida and orders subsequent 

competency training. 

Case 4:11-cv-00198-RS-WCS Document 16 Filed 08/03/11 Page 7 of 23
8

27. Under Chapter 916, through the assistance of expert testimony, a criminal court 

determines whether a person is incompetent to proceed and, if so, the basis for the 

person’s incompetence. 

28. If the criminal court finds that a person is incompetent due to mental retardation3

or autism, then the court may involuntarily commit such person for competency 

training.

29. Pursuant to Chapter 916, whenever a person is involuntarily committed due to 

mental retardation or autism, the Defendants must retain the person and provide 

him or her with appropriate training and treatment. 

30. The state of Florida has designated MRDP as the secure forensic facility charged 

with housing and providing training and treatment to such persons, which 

includes the named Plaintiffs, and the class represented by the named Plaintiffs.

31. Shortly after admission to MRDP, Defendants are required to create an 

individualized training and treatment program for each resident. Defendants are 

required to provide an array of services, including medical, vocational, social, 

educational, behavioral, rehabilitative, and habilitative services with a focus on 

the residents’ return to the criminal court as well as to the community. 

 

3 Retardation is defined as “significantly sub average general intellectual functioning 

existing concurrently with deficits in adaptive behavior that manifests before the age of 

18 and can reasonably be expected to continue indefinitely.” Fla. Stat. § 393.063(31). 

Thus, every person whose incompetence is the result of retardation has been found to 

have significant deficits in intellectual and adaptive functioning.

Case 4:11-cv-00198-RS-WCS Document 16 Filed 08/03/11 Page 8 of 23
9

F.A.

32. F.A. is diagnosed with mild mental retardation, bipolar disorder, ADHD, and 

conduct disorder. He is 18 years old.

33. From the time F.A. was admitted to MRDP, he was involved in a high number of 

behaviors that Defendants deem maladaptive.

34. The majority of F.A.’s maladaptive behaviors involve agitating others and threats 

to staff and other residents. 

35. Defendants have failed to conduct adequate psychological, psychiatric, and 

behavioral assessments for F.A. that consider his complex mental health needs. 

Although F.A. has been diagnosed with mild mental retardation, bipolar disorder, 

ADHD, and conduct disorder, the Defendants have failed to adequately assess 

these diagnoses and then, using those assessments, develop appropriate treatment 

interventions. 

36. Instead of developing an individualized treatment plan based on assessments of 

F.A.’s complex needs, Defendants have created an inadequate and generic support 

plan. F.A.’s support plan does not specify what individual behavioral, adaptive, 

and mental health needs will be addressed or what specific, individual treatment 

steps will be taken to address those needs. The treatment objectives and goals 

listed in F.A.’s support plan are substantially similar or, in some places, identical 

to the treatment and objective goals listed in other residents’ support plans. 

Case 4:11-cv-00198-RS-WCS Document 16 Filed 08/03/11 Page 9 of 23
10

37. Although F.A.’s diagnoses, trauma history, and problematic behavior indicate a 

need for individual or group therapy, F.A. does not participate in either type of 

therapy because Defendants do not provide it. 

38. Although Defendants have attempted to draft a behavior plan for F.A., the plan 

falls well below professional judgment standards. It is not based on the 

professionally accepted procedure of an individualized functional assessment that 

includes an assessment of how F.A.’s mental health diagnoses may impact his 

behavior. 

39. Defendants also fail to adequately execute F.A.’s behavior plan. The plan’s 

strategies for “reinforcement of appropriate behavior” have not been 

implemented. There is no mechanism to track whether the behavior plan results 

in the improvement of or changes to F.A.’s behavior. 

40. Rather than provide F.A. with adequate treatment and training to help him learn to 

manage his behaviors, Defendants instead subject F.A. to seclusion. Since April 

2011, F.A. has been subjected to seclusion at least 18 times.

41. When Defendants put F.A. in seclusion, he is isolated in a room alone and the 

door is locked or otherwise barricaded to prevent F.A. from leaving.

42. As a part of F.A.’s behavioral plan, Defendants explicitly authorize F.A.’s 

seclusion for behaviors like yelling, pacing halls, slamming doors, walking away 

from staff, and spitting or cursing at others. These behaviors do not pose an 

imminent threat of harm to F.A. or others.

Case 4:11-cv-00198-RS-WCS Document 16 Filed 08/03/11 Page 10 of 23
11

43. Defendants use seclusion as a punitive measure and as a “treatment” response to 

behavior that should be addressed through adequate behavioral programming.

44. Defendants’ failure to provide adequate treatment and training to F.A. leads to

Defendants’ use of unnecessary seclusion against F.A. F.A.’s behavioral 

problems, mental health condition, and other deficits have not changed since 

F.A.’s admission to MRDP.

J.R.

45. J.R. is diagnosed with moderate mental retardation, seizure disorder, and has a 

history of bipolar disorder. He is 19 years old. 

46. From the time J.R. was admitted to MRDP, he was involved in a high number of 

behaviors that Defendants deem maladaptive.

47. The majority of J.R.’s maladaptive behaviors involve agitating others and threats 

to staff and other residents. 

48. Defendants have failed to conduct adequate psychological, psychiatric, and 

behavioral assessments for J.R. that consider his complex mental health needs. 

Although J.R. has been diagnosed with moderate mental retardation and history of 

bipolar disorder, the Defendants have failed to adequately assess these diagnoses 

and then, using those assessments, develop appropriate treatment interventions to 

address them. 

49. Instead of developing an individualized treatment plan based on assessments of 

J.R.’s complex needs, Defendants have created an inadequate and generic support 

plan. J.R.’s support plan does not specify what individual behavioral, adaptive, 

Case 4:11-cv-00198-RS-WCS Document 16 Filed 08/03/11 Page 11 of 23
12

and mental health needs will be addressed or what specific, individual treatment 

steps will be taken to address those needs. The treatment objectives and goals 

listed in J.R.’s support plan are substantially similar or, in some places, identical 

to the treatment and objective goals listed in other residents’ support plans. 

50. Although J.R.’s diagnoses and problematic behavior indicate a need for individual 

or group therapy, J.R. does not participate in either type of therapy because 

Defendants do not provide it. 

51. Although Defendants have attempted to draft a behavior plan for J.R., the plan 

falls well below professional judgment standards. It is not based on the 

professionally accepted procedure of a functional assessment that includes an 

assessment of how J.R.’s bipolar disorder may impact his behavior. Additionally, 

although J.R.’s current seizure medication can cause problems in behavior, 

Defendants have never conducted an assessment to determine if J.R.’s behaviors 

are related to his medication. 

52. Defendants fail to adequately execute J.R.’s behavior plan. The plan’s strategies 

for “reinforcement of appropriate behavior” have not been implemented. There is 

no mechanism to track whether the behavior plan results in the improvement of or 

changes to J.R.’s behavior. 

53. J.R. exhibits significant deficits in adaptive skills related to activities of daily 

living, like toileting, grooming, and cleaning up after himself. Defendants have 

not conducted an assessment to determine what specific adaptive deficits J.R. 

Case 4:11-cv-00198-RS-WCS Document 16 Filed 08/03/11 Page 12 of 23
13

possesses or his capacity for attaining new skills. Defendants do not provide 

habilitative training to J.R. to address these deficits.4 

54. Rather than provide J.R. with adequate treatment and training to help him learn to 

manage his behaviors, Defendants instead subject J.R. to seclusion. Since 

December 2010, J.R. has been subjected to seclusion at least 49 times. 

55. When Defendants put J.R. in seclusion, he is isolated in a room alone and the door 

is locked or otherwise barricaded to prevent J.R. from leaving. On several 

occasions, J.R. has been observed crying while in seclusion. 

56. As a part of J.R.’s behavioral plan, Defendants explicitly authorize J.R.’s 

seclusion for behaviors like yelling, pacing halls, slamming doors, walking away 

from staff, and spitting or cursing at others. These behaviors do not pose an 

imminent threat of harm to J.R. or others.

57. Defendants use seclusion as a punitive measure and as a “treatment” response to 

behavior that should be addressed through adequate behavioral programming.

58. At times, Defendants use metal handcuffs to restrain J.R. while placing him in 

seclusion. In June 2011, J.R. was put in seclusion while restrained in metal cuffs. 

For the first 20 minutes of the seclusion period, Defendants left J.R. in the metal 

cuffs although he posed no threat of harm to himself or others around him as he 

was barricaded in a seclusion room. 

 

4 Habilitative training is the practice of teaching new skills to individuals who have 

longstanding, persistent deficits in adaptive functioning skills. Habilitative training is

typically associated with persons who have been diagnosed with a developmental 

disability, like mental retardation or autism. 

Case 4:11-cv-00198-RS-WCS Document 16 Filed 08/03/11 Page 13 of 23
14

59. Defendants’ use seclusion as a punitive measure in response to behavior that does 

not pose a threat of harm to others. For example, in June 2011, J.R. defecated on 

himself and was taken to the shower to be cleaned. While in the shower, he again 

defecated on himself. After he was clean and dressed and as he was walking back 

from the shower, J.R. defecated on himself a third time. When he refused to 

shower and threatened to spit, security was called and he was told to go to the 

seclusion room. J.R. independently walked to the seclusion room where he was 

forced to stay for 20 minutes.

60. Defendants’ failure to provide adequate treatment and training to J.R. leads to the 

Defendants’ use of unnecessary seclusion against J.R. J.R.’s behavioral 

problems, mental health condition, and other deficits have not changed since 

J.R.’s admission to MRDP.

W.M.

61. W.M. is diagnosed with mild mental retardation and has a history of depression. 

W.M. also has a history of head injury and psychological trauma. He is 23 years 

old. 

62. From the time W.M. was admitted to MRDP, he was involved in a high number 

of behaviors that Defendants deem maladaptive. 

63. The behaviors include creating disturbances by screaming or yelling, threats to 

staff and other residents, and fights with staff and other residents.

64. Defendants have failed to conduct adequate psychological, psychiatric, and 

behavioral assessments for W.M. that consider his complex mental health needs. 

Case 4:11-cv-00198-RS-WCS Document 16 Filed 08/03/11 Page 14 of 23
15

Although W.M. has been diagnosed with mild mental retardation and depression

and has a history of both head injury and psychological trauma, the Defendants 

have failed to adequately assess these diagnoses and histories, and then use those 

assessments to develop appropriate treatment interventions. 

65. Instead of developing an individualized treatment plan based on assessments of 

W.M.’s complex needs, Defendants have created an inadequate and generic 

support plan. W.M.’s support plan does not specify what individual behavioral, 

adaptive, and mental health needs will be addressed or what specific, individual 

treatment steps will be taken to address those needs. The treatment objectives and 

goals listed in W.M.’s support plan are substantially similar or, in some places, 

identical to the treatment and objective goals listed in other residents’ support 

plans. 

66. Although W.M.’s diagnoses and problematic behavior indicate a need for 

individual or group therapy, W.M. does not participate in either type of therapy 

because Defendants do not provide it. 

67. In the more than two years he has been at MRDP, Defendants have not made 

attempts to determine the causes of W.M.’s behavior through the professionally 

accepted procedure of a functional assessment, and then, based on that 

assessment, develop an individualized behavior plan. 

68. Rather than provide W.M. with adequate treatment and training to help him learn 

to manage his behaviors, Defendants instead subject W.M. to seclusion. Since 

January 2010, W.M. has been subjected to seclusion at least 60 times. 

Case 4:11-cv-00198-RS-WCS Document 16 Filed 08/03/11 Page 15 of 23
16

69. When W.M. is put in seclusion, he is isolated in a room alone and the door is 

locked or otherwise barricaded to prevent W.M. from leaving. 

70. Defendants put W.M. in seclusion when he does not pose an imminent threat of 

harm to himself or others. For example, in June 2010, staff wrote up W.M. for 

horseplay and verbal threats between him and another resident. Staff put W.M. in 

his room. When he was calm, the staff opened his room door and W.M. calmly 

and independently walked to the seclusion room. W.M. was required to be in the 

seclusion room for one hour even though he was calm at the time of his placement 

in the seclusion room.

71. On many other occasions, Defendants have subjected W.M. to periods of 

seclusion when he was otherwise calm. 

72. W.M. has also been subject to extended seclusion on at least four separate

occasions. Each period of extended seclusion lasted between three to six days. 

73. Defendants’ failure to provide adequate treatment and training to W.M. leads to 

the Defendants’ use of unnecessary seclusion against W.M. W.M.’s behavioral 

problems, mental health condition, and other deficits have not changed since 

W.M.’s admission to MRDP.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS ABOUT THE TREATMENT, TRAINING, AND USE 

OF SECLUSION AT MRDP

74. Defendants are the officials directly responsible for the adoption and 

implementation of the treatment and training programs at MRDP. 

Case 4:11-cv-00198-RS-WCS Document 16 Filed 08/03/11 Page 16 of 23
17

75. Defendants fail to consider the complex psychological, psychiatric, and 

behavioral needs of Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated. Plaintiffs, and others 

similarly situated, have extremely complex needs and require thorough 

psychiatric assessments, assessments for trauma and substance abuse, 

neurological assessments, and neuropsychological assessments. For individuals, 

like Plaintiffs, who have complex needs, professional judgment requires that 

treatment selection be based on thorough assessment. Since Defendants fail to 

provide these thorough individualized assessments, their treatment plans also 

substantially depart from accepted professional judgment standards. 

76. Defendants have adopted a policy or custom that relies on a non-individualized, 

generic treatment of Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated. The objectives and 

measures identified by Defendants in MRDP’s generic treatment plans are 

substantially similar and, at times identical, across Plaintiffs and others similarly 

situated. The identical treatment objectives and measures suggest that Defendants 

select treatment methods from a set of pre-determined options rather than build 

treatment plans around the individual needs of Plaintiffs and others similarly 

situated. 

77. Defendants do not provide Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, with

psychological, psychiatric, habilitative, and behavioral services that are sufficient 

in intensity or quality. Even the generic treatment measures recommended by 

Defendants are rarely implemented. 

Case 4:11-cv-00198-RS-WCS Document 16 Filed 08/03/11 Page 17 of 23
18

78. Defendants have adopted a policy and custom that relies on restraint and seclusion 

when the generic treatment plans and programs for Plaintiffs, and others similarly 

situated, fail and the Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, engage in 

maladaptive behaviors. 

79. Defendants have not developed individualized behavior plans for Plaintiffs, or 

others similarly situated, using generally accepted procedures such as a functional

assessment. Defendants’ failure to utilize these professionally accepted methods 

to modify the behavior of Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, is a substantial 

departure from accepted professional judgment practice and standards.

80. Defendants do not utilize an interdisciplinary approach to develop support plans 

and behavior programs that incorporate the psychological, psychiatric, and 

behavioral health needs of individuals dually diagnosed with mental retardation 

and mental illness. Instead, the Defendants’ policy is to punish individuals for 

behaviors that manifest as a result of these dual diagnoses by authorizing the use 

of seclusion and restraint for behaviors that do not pose an imminent threat of 

harm to other residents or staff. 

81. The Defendants’ authorization of the continued and counterproductive use of 

seclusion and mechanical restraints on Plaintiffs without first requiring the 

development of an adequate individualized treatment program for Plaintiffs is a 

substantial departure from accepted professional judgment practice and standards.

82. Defendants’ failure to conduct individualized assessments and make a 

determination that Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, would benefit from the 

Case 4:11-cv-00198-RS-WCS Document 16 Filed 08/03/11 Page 18 of 23
19

generic procedures set forth in the behavior plan, creates a self-defeating situation 

for Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, that can lead to further psychological 

damage. 

83. Defendants violate professional judgment standards by placing Plaintiffs, and 

others similarly situated, in seclusion when they were calm and not a threat to 

themselves or others.

84. Defendants have adopted a policy or custom at MRDP that relies on seclusion and 

restraint as punishment for behaviors that are related to the disabilities of 

Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated. 

85. Defendants have utilized seclusion on many occasions against Plaintiffs, and 

others similarly situated, for punitive purposes rather than for reasons related to 

protection of Plaintiffs or others in response to behaviors that do not rise to the 

level of emergency or crisis.

86. Defendants’ use of seclusion against Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, is for 

the very purpose of punishment for their behavior and not for the purpose of 

preventing harm to Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated.

87. Defendants’ acts and omissions, as set forth in paragraphs 1-86 of the First 

Amended Complaint, deprive Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, of their 

Constitutional right to adequate treatment and training and to be free from 

unnecessary bodily restraint.

Case 4:11-cv-00198-RS-WCS Document 16 Filed 08/03/11 Page 19 of 23
20

CLAIM FOR RELIEF - VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS CLAUSE

88. Defendants’ failure to provide constitutionally adequate treatment or training for 

Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, is a substantial departure from accepted 

professional judgment practice and standards and violates Plaintiffs’ rights under 

the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States 

Constitution. 

89. Defendants’ use of seclusion and restraint against Plaintiffs, and others similarly 

situated, without an attempt to reduce the behavior using generally accepted 

alternative treatment modalities is a substantial departure from accepted 

professional judgment, practice and standards and violates Plaintiffs’ rights under 

the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States 

Constitution. 

90. Defendants’ punitive seclusion and restraint of Plaintiffs, and others similarly 

situated, for behavior that is non-threatening to staff, other residents, or Plaintiffs 

and others similarly situated is a substantial departure from accepted professional 

judgment, practice and standards and violates Plaintiffs’ rights under the Due 

Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 

91. Defendants’ use of seclusion and restraint as the primary component of behavioral 

“treatment” for Plaintiffs and others similarly situated is a substantial departure 

from accepted professional judgment, practice and standards and violates 

Plaintiffs’ rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to 

the United States Constitution. 

Case 4:11-cv-00198-RS-WCS Document 16 Filed 08/03/11 Page 20 of 23
21

92. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.

93. The Plaintiffs also seek attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, 

which authorizes the award of attorney’s fees and costs to prevailing Plaintiffs in 

actions brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

REQUESTS FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Court:

A. Certify this action as a class action; 

B. Declare that Defendants have violated the due process rights of Plaintiffs, 

and the class members, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States 

Constitution by subjecting Plaintiffs, and members of the class, to the policies, practices 

and conditions of confinement described herein;

C. Permanently enjoin Defendants, their agents, employees, successors and 

all other persons acting in concert or participation with them from engaging in the 

unlawful acts described herein;

D. Retain jurisdiction over Defendants until such time as the Court is 

satisfied that the unlawful policies, practices, acts and omissions complained of herein no 

longer exist and will not recur;

E. Award Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1988; and

F. Grant such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

Case 4:11-cv-00198-RS-WCS Document 16 Filed 08/03/11 Page 21 of 23
22

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

/s/ Katherine DeBriere

Katherine DeBriere

Fla. Bar No.: 58506

Kristen Lentz

Fla. Bar No.: 649635

Peter Sleasman

Fla. Bar No.: 367931

Christopher Jones

Fla. Bar No.: 994642

Florida Institutional Legal Services, Inc.

14260 W. Newberry Rd., Ste. #412

Newberry, FL 32669-2765

(352) 375-2494 (telephone)

(352) 331-5202 (facsimile) 

kdebriere@filsinc.org

klentz@filsinc.org

psleasman@filsinc.org

cjones@filsinc.org

Paul E. Liles

Fla. Bar No.: 0921270

Disability Rights Florida, Inc.

1000 N. Ashley Dr., Ste. #640

Tampa, FL 33602-3716

(850) 488-9071 (telephone)

(850) 488-8640 (facsimile)

paull@disabilityrightsflorida.org

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

Dated: August 3, 2011

Case 4:11-cv-00198-RS-WCS Document 16 Filed 08/03/11 Page 22 of 23
23

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 3rd day of August 2011, I electronically filed the 

foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system and will serve this First 

Amended Complaint along with summons upon Defendants pursuant to Rule 4(c) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

/s/ Katherine DeBriere

Katherine DeBriere

Case 4:11-cv-00198-RS-WCS Document 16 Filed 08/03/11 Page 23 of 23