UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

________________________________________

E.B., by and through his Next Friend, Victoria 

Bronsfield, W.M. and F.U., by and through their

Next Friend, Robert Link, individually, and on behalf 

of a class of all persons similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No.:

BRYAN VAUGHAN, in his official capacity 

as Interim Director of the Agency for Persons with

Disabilities; SANDY KOON, in her official 

capacity as Superintendent of the Mentally Retarded

Defendants Program; and KEVIN JACKSON, in his 

official capacity as clinical director of the Mentally 

Retarded Defendants Program,

Defendants.

________________________________________

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR 

DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. Plaintiffs, E.B., by and through his next friend, Victoria Bronsfield, W.M. and 

F.U., by and through their next friend Robert Link, 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 

Retarded Defendant Program (“MRDP”), pursuant to Section 916.302 of the Florida Statutes or 

Section 916.303(3) of the Florida Statutes, and all of whom allege they have been the victims of 

Case 4:11-cv-00198-SPM -WCS Document 1 Filed 05/05/11 Page 1 of 20
2

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 adaptive and 

behavioral needs. 

3. 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. The objectives identified to meet 

those goals are also not individualized. The behavioral treatment components of 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 behavioral and adaptive treatment and training results in the 

unnecessary and excessive use of seclusion and restraints, and impedes Plaintiffs‟, and others‟ 

similarly situated, ability to acquire or maintain the adaptive skills, including behavioral skills, 

necessary to function outside of a secure forensic facility. 

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. 

Case 4:11-cv-00198-SPM -WCS Document 1 Filed 05/05/11 Page 2 of 20
3

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. 

PARTIES

PLAINTIFFS

9. E.B. was involuntarily committed to APD for competency training on March 5, 

2008, after he was found incompetent to stand trial due to mental retardation.1 In August of 

 

1

The developmental disabilities community strongly encourages use of the term “intellectual 

disability” in lieu of “mental retardation” or “retardation.” See Shalock, Luckasson, and Shogren. 

“The Renaming of „Mental Retardation:‟ Understanding the Change to the Term „Intellectual 

Disability.” Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. Vol. 45, No. 2: 116-124 (2007). See 

also Pub. Law. 111-256, § 1, Oct. 5, 2010, 124 Stat. 2643 (“Rosa‟s Law”). For purposes of 

Case 4:11-cv-00198-SPM -WCS Document 1 Filed 05/05/11 Page 3 of 20
4

2008, E.B. was admitted to MRDP, where he is currently housed. E.B.‟s claim is brought 

through his mother and next friend, Victoria Bronsfield. 

10. 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. 

11. F.U. was involuntarily committed to APD for competency training on April 22, 

2009 after he was found incompetent to stand trial due to mental retardation. On June 10, 2009, 

F.U. was admitted to the MRDP, where he is currently housed. F.U.‟s claim is brought through 

his next friend, Robert Link. 

DEFENDANTS

12. The Defendant, BRYAN VAUGHAN, (“Vaughan”) is the Interim Director of 

APD.2 APD is responsible for providing training and treatment to all persons involuntarily 

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

Statutes, Vaughan 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 for the purposes of declaratory and injunctive relief. 

 

consistency, since the state of Florida and APD still use the term “retardation” or “mental 

retardation,” those terms will be used in this complaint. 

2 Based on information and belief, Vaughn is the Interim Director for APD and, in the near 

future, the governor of Florida may appoint a permanent director to replace Vaughn. In the event 

the governor appoints a new APD director, Plaintiffs will immediately file a motion to substitute 

the newly appointed director for Vaughan.

Case 4:11-cv-00198-SPM -WCS Document 1 Filed 05/05/11 Page 4 of 20
5

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

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

MRDP.3 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 for the purposes of declaratory and injunctive 

relief.

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 for the purposes of declaratory and injunctive relief. 

15. At all times relevant to this 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.

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

Chapter 916 of the Florida Statutes to MRDP.

 

3 Based on information and belief, Koon is the Interim Superintendent for MRDP and, in the near 

future, may be replaced by a permanent superintendent. In the event APD hires another person 

to take over Koon‟s current position as MRDP superintendent, Plaintiffs will immediately file a 

motion to substitute the newly hired superintendent for Koon.

Case 4:11-cv-00198-SPM -WCS Document 1 Filed 05/05/11 Page 5 of 20
6

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 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 they have all been harmed by 

the unconstitutional practices alleged in this 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.

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

class action litigation concerning conditions, practices, and treatment in institutions. 

23. The Defendants have acted on grounds generally applicable to the Plaintiff 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, 

Case 4:11-cv-00198-SPM -WCS Document 1 Filed 05/05/11 Page 6 of 20
7

in lieu thereof, using unnecessary seclusion and bodily restraint against those persons 

necessitates injunctive relief directing Defendants to implement remedial measures.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

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 of the Florida Statutes (“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. 

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 retardation4

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. 

 

4 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.” § 393.063(31), Fla. Stat. 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-SPM -WCS Document 1 Filed 05/05/11 Page 7 of 20
8

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. Within 30 days of 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. 

E.B.

32. E.B. is diagnosed with moderate mental retardation and impulse control disorder. 

Additionally, E.B. has a psychiatric history of bipolar disorder, depression, and self-injurious 

behavior. 

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

“maladaptive behaviors.” Maladaptive behaviors are broadly defined and can include minor 

behaviors or even behaviors where the person disciplined was not the perpetrator of the incident. 

34. The maladaptive behaviors include creating disturbances by yelling, threats to 

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

35. In response to these maladaptive behaviors, Defendants put E.B. in seclusion or 

restraint. Since May 2010, E.B. has been subjected to seclusion or mechanical restraint more 

than 45 times. 

36. When Defendants put E.B. in seclusion, he is isolated in a room alone and the 

door is locked or otherwise barricaded to prevent E.B. from leaving. 

Case 4:11-cv-00198-SPM -WCS Document 1 Filed 05/05/11 Page 8 of 20
9

37. Defendants use a “restraint chair” when they put E.B. in restraint. A restraint 

chair is a mechanical restraint device. After a person is placed in the restraint chair in a seated 

position, the person‟s arms, shoulders, and legs are then strapped down which completely

immobilizes the person‟s torso and limbs.

38. Since June of 2010, E.B. has been placed in mechanical restraint approximately 

22 times. 

39. Aside from Defendants‟ use of restraint and seclusion, they have created an 

inadequate and generic support plan to address E.B.‟s behavior. 

40. There is only one objective listed in the plan that directly addresses E.B.‟s 

behavior. This objective states that E.B. is to “progress to the highest stage of the unit-wide 

behavior program (level 4).”5 

41. To implement this objective, the Defendants state that E.B. should meet with a 

behavior analyst615 minutes per month and take psychiatric medication. 

42. E.B.‟s support plan does not identify what specific, individual behavioral 

problems will be addressed during these meetings or what specific, individual treatment steps 

will be taken. 

 

5

The “unit-wide behavior program” is not a behavioral treatment program that utilizes the 

principles of behavior analysis, but instead, is a level system that tracks the amount of privileges 

a resident receives based on the number of maladaptive behaviors the resident engages in.

6

The term “behavior analyst” is the term used for professionals that practice “behavior analysis.” 

Behavior analysis is “provided to assist a person...to learn new behavior that [is] directly related 

to existing challenging behaviors...[b]ehavior analysis includes the design, implementation and 

evaluation of systematic environmental modifications for the purposes of producing socially 

significant improvements in...human behavior.” Florida‟s Agency for Healthcare 

Administration, Developmental Disabilities Medicaid Waiver Services and Coverage Limitation 

Handbook, 2-21 (May 2010).

Case 4:11-cv-00198-SPM -WCS Document 1 Filed 05/05/11 Page 9 of 20
10

43. On its face, E.B.‟s support plan is insufficient because it fails to reflect 

individualized treatment assessments and recommendations, but, in practice, Defendants‟ 

treatment falls far shorter because Defendants do not implement their own generic treatment 

recommendations. For example, E.B. does not and has never met with a behavior analyst on any 

regular basis, including a monthly basis.

44. Aside from, but also related to E.B.‟s behavior, is his need for therapeutic 

psychological services to address his bipolar disorder and depression. However, E.B. does not 

meet with a psychologist for this purpose. 

45. Defendants do not provide any formal treatment or training to E.B. to improve or 

maintain his adaptive functioning skills that, in turn, would help him to control his behavior. 

46. Defendants fail to provide E.B. with adequate mental healthcare. 

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

attempts to determine the antecedents or causes of E.B‟s behavior through the professionally 

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

individualized behavior plan.7

48. Instead, Defendants‟ restrain and seclude E.B. in response to maladaptive 

behaviors that could be alternatively addressed through adequate treatment and training. 

Defendants‟ restrain and seclude E.B. at times when he is calm and does not pose an imminent 

threat of harm to himself or others. 

 

7 A functional assessment is a systematic process of identifying problem behaviors and the 

events that reliably predict occurrence and nonoccurrence of those behaviors and maintain the 

behaviors across time. The purpose of gathering this information is to improve the effectiveness, 

relevance, and efficiency of individualized behavior plans.

Case 4:11-cv-00198-SPM -WCS Document 1 Filed 05/05/11 Page 10 of 20
11

49. Defendants‟ use of seclusion and restraint has not led to any changes or decreases 

in E.B.‟s behavior, and, in fact, E.B.‟s behavior has steadily worsened. 

W.M.

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

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

of maladaptive behaviors. In response to these maladaptive behaviors, MRDP staff place him in 

seclusion or mechanical restraints. 

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

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

53. The MRDP staff have and continue to place W.M. in seclusion or mechanical 

restraint following his maladaptive behaviors at the direction and approval of Defendants. 

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

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

55. Since January 2010, Defendants have subjected W.M. to seclusion at least 60 

times. 

56. With few exceptions, Defendants place 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 placed 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.

Case 4:11-cv-00198-SPM -WCS Document 1 Filed 05/05/11 Page 11 of 20
12

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

seclusion when he was otherwise calm. 

58. W.M. has also been subject to extended seclusion on at least four occasions. Each 

period of extended seclusion lasted between three to six days. 

59. Defendants have created an inadequate and generic support plan to address 

W.M.‟s behavior. 

60. The plan consists of putting W.M. in the same MRDP level system as every other 

MRDP client regardless of the nature or severity of their behaviors. 

61. There is only one objective listed in the plan that directly addresses W.M.‟s 

behavior. This objective states that W.M. is to progress in the unit-wide behavior program. 

62. To implement this objective, W.M.‟s June 2009, February 2010, and May 2010 

support plans state that W.M. should meet with a behavior analyst 15 minutes per month for 

purposes of behavioral training and take psychiatric medication. 

63. W.M. does not meet with a psychologist8or behavior analyst for purposes of 

behavioral treatment and training. 

64. W.M.‟s support plan does not identify what specific, individual behavioral 

problems will be addressed during these meetings or what specific, individual treatment steps 

will be taken.

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

attempts to determine the antecedents or causes of W.M.‟s behavior through the professionally 

 

8

Psychologists can provide behavioral therapy if they have background in behavioral analysis or 

are board certified as a behavior analyst.

Case 4:11-cv-00198-SPM -WCS Document 1 Filed 05/05/11 Page 12 of 20
13

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

individualized behavior plan. 

66. Instead, Defendants seclude W.M. in response to maladaptive behavior that 

Defendants could address through adequate treatment and training. With few exceptions, 

Defendants seclude W.M. at times when W.M. is calm and does not pose an imminent threat of 

harm to himself or others. 

67. Defendants‟ use of seclusion and restraint has not led to any changes or decreases 

in W.M.‟s behavior, and, in fact, W.M.‟s behavior has steadily worsened. 

F.U.

68. F.U. is dually diagnosed with schizo-affective disorder and mild mental 

retardation. F.U. also has a long history of self-injurious behavior and suicidal ideation. 

69. F.U.‟s MRDP records indicate that he has difficulties performing even simple 

tasks like showering or eating without verbal prompts. 

70. Although F.U‟s records identify that he has deficits in adaptive functioning skills, 

F.U. does not participate in any formal treatment or training to improve or maintain his adaptive 

functioning skills. 

71. F.U. has been involved in over 230 reported instances of “maladaptive” behavior. 

72. MRDP staff have and continue to place F.U. in seclusion or mechanical restraint 

following his maladaptive behaviors at the direction and approval of Defendants. 

73. Defendants have put F.U. in either seclusion or mechanical restraints more than 

40 times. 

Case 4:11-cv-00198-SPM -WCS Document 1 Filed 05/05/11 Page 13 of 20
14

74. When F.U. is put in seclusion, he is isolated in a room alone and the door is 

locked or otherwise barricaded to prevent F.U. from leaving. 

75. When F.U. is put in mechanical restraint, MRDP staff strap F.U.‟s arms, 

shoulders, waist, and legs to a restraint chair. 

76. Between July and November 2010, F.U. was put in the restraint chair over 20 

times. 

77. F.U. has also been subject to extended seclusion with one duration lasting six 

days. 

78. Defendants have created an inadequate and generic support plan to address F.U.‟s 

behavior. The support plan consists of placing F.U. in the same MRDP level system as every 

other MRDP client regardless of the nature or severity of their behaviors. 

79. There is only one objective listed in the plan that directly addresses F.U.‟s 

behavior. This objective states that F.U. is to progress in the unit-wide behavior program. The 

interventions to achieve this objective have remained unchanged since the development of his 

initial support plan in 2009, regardless of F.U.‟s behavior. 

80. Defendants listed the intervention toward this goal as “psychologist will meet 

with resident monthly for at least 15 minutes to review progress.”

81. In June 2010, Defendants indicated that F.U. had made “no progress” toward his 

goal and he remained on the lowest level of the level system. 

82. Even though the Defendants acknowledged F.U. made no progress in achieving 

the support plan goal, the Defendants did not alter the interventions to assist F.U. in reaching the 

goal. 

Case 4:11-cv-00198-SPM -WCS Document 1 Filed 05/05/11 Page 14 of 20
15

83. In the nearly two years he has been at MRDP, Defendants have not made attempts 

to determine the antecedents or causes of F.U.‟s behavior through the professionally accepted 

procedure of functional assessment, and then, based on that assessment, develop an 

individualized behavior plan. 

84. Instead, Defendants restrain and seclude F.U. in response to maladaptive behavior 

that Defendants could address through adequate treatment and training. With few exceptions, 

Defendants restrain or seclude F.U. at times when he is calm and does not pose an imminent 

threat of harm to himself or others.

85. Defendants‟ use of seclusion and restraint has not led to any changes or decreases 

in F.U.‟s behavior, and, in fact, F.U.‟s behavior has steadily worsened.

DEFENDANTS’ VIOLATIONS OF PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT

86. Vaughan, Koon, and Jackson are the officials directly responsible for the adoption 

and implementation of the treatment and behavior management system in the MRDP. 

87. The Defendants have not developed individualized behavior plans for E.B., W.M., 

and F.U., or others similarly situated, using generally accepted procedures such as a functional

assessment. 

88. The Defendants‟ failure to utilize these generally accepted methods to modify the 

behavior of E.B., W.M., F.U. and others similarly situated, is a substantial departure from 

accepted professional judgment practice and standards.

89. Vaughn, Koon, and Jackson have adopted a policy or custom relying on a nonindividualized, generic program in the MRDP that is ineffective and can be counter-productive 

for managing the behavior of the clients that have behavioral issues related to their disabilities. 

Case 4:11-cv-00198-SPM -WCS Document 1 Filed 05/05/11 Page 15 of 20
16

90. The Defendants rely on the excessive use of seclusion and mechanical restraints 

to manage and punish Plaintiffs‟ behaviors.

91. The Defendants have adopted a policy of extended seclusion, whereby they 

authorize the placement of residents in seclusion even when the residents exhibit completely 

calm and cooperative behavior. The average length of extended seclusion is between two and 

three days.

92. The Defendants‟ authorization of the continued and counterproductive use of 

seclusion and mechanical restraints on E.B., W.M., and F.U. without first requiring the 

development of an adequate individualized treatment program for E.B., W.M., and F.U. is a 

substantial departure from accepted professional judgment practice and standards.

93. Vaughan, Koon, and Jackson have adopted a behavior management program in 

the MRDP that relies on excessive use of seclusion and restraint to control Plaintiffs, and others 

similarly situated, in lieu of an appropriate, professionally accepted, individualized treatment and 

behavior management programs. 

94. The 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. 

95. Defendants have utilized seclusion on many occasions against E.B., W.M., and 

F.U., and others similarly situated, for punitive purposes rather than for reasons related to 

protection of selves or others in response to behaviors that do not rise to the level of emergency 

or crisis.

Case 4:11-cv-00198-SPM -WCS Document 1 Filed 05/05/11 Page 16 of 20
17

96. The use of seclusion against E.B., W.M., and F.U. was for the very purpose of 

punishment for their behavior and not for the purpose of preventing harm to E.B., W.M., and 

F.U., or others similarly situated.

97. The Defendants violated professional judgment standards by keeping E.B., W.M., 

F.U., and others similarly situated, in seclusion for a pre-determined amount of time even though 

they exhibit calm behavior for all or most of the duration of their time in seclusion.

98. The Defendants violated professional judgment standards by placing E.B., W.M., 

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

themselves or others. 

99. Defendants‟ acts and omissions, as set forth in paragraphs 32 through 98, 

deprived E.B., W.M., F.U., and others similarly situated, of their Constitutional right to adequate 

treatment and training and to be free from unnecessary bodily restraint.

CLAIM FOR RELIEF - VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS CLAUSE

100. 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. 

101. 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. 

Case 4:11-cv-00198-SPM -WCS Document 1 Filed 05/05/11 Page 17 of 20
18

102. Defendants‟ punitive seclusion and restraint of Plaintiffs, and others similarly 

situated, for behavior that was 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. 

103. Defendants‟ use of restraint and seclusion as the primary component of behavioral 

“treatment” for Plaintiffs and others similarly situated, regardless of whether it is having any 

effect on behavior, 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. 

104. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.

105. 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;

Case 4:11-cv-00198-SPM -WCS Document 1 Filed 05/05/11 Page 18 of 20
19

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.

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

Case 4:11-cv-00198-SPM -WCS Document 1 Filed 05/05/11 Page 19 of 20
20

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: May 5, 2011

Case 4:11-cv-00198-SPM -WCS Document 1 Filed 05/05/11 Page 20 of 20