UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

MICHIGAN PROTECTION & 

ADVOCACY SERVICE, INC. 

 Case No. 2:09-cv-12224 

 Plaintiff, 

 Hon. Denise Page Hood 

v. 

WARREN C. EVANS, In his Official 

Capacity as Sheriff of Wayne County 

 Defendant. 

______________________________________/ 

Michigan Protection & Advocacy Service, Inc. Department of Corporation Counsel 

Chris E. Davis (P52159) James M. Surowiec (P49560) 

29200 Vassar Blvd., Suite 200 600 Randolph St., Suite 253 

Livonia, MI 48152 Detroit MI 48226 

Phone: (248) 473-2990 Phone: (313) 224-6682 

Email: cdavis@mpas.org Email: jsurowiec@co.wayne.mi.us 

Attorney for Plaintiff Attorney for Defendant 

_____________________________________/ 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUBSTITUTION OF DEFENDANT, SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT, PERMANENT INJUNCTION, AND COSTS/ATTORNEY FEES 

 The Plaintiff, Michigan Protection and Advocacy Service (MPAS), requests this 

Honorable Court issue a declaratory judgment and a permanent injunction, pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, enforcing its rights under the federal protection and advocacy 

laws, 42 U.S.C. § § 10807-10827, the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with 

Mental Illness Act of 1986 (PAIMI); 42 U.S.C. § 15043, Developmental Disabilities 

Assistance and Bill of Rights (DD) Act of 2000, and ; 29 U.S.C. § 794e(f), the Protection 

and Advocacy of Individual Rights (PAIR) Program of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as 

amended. Additionally, MPAS requests this Court award it attorney fees and costs 

Case 2:09-cv-12224-DPH-RSW ECF No. 15, PageID.118 Filed 09/03/09 Page 1 of 29
against the Defendant pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 for violation of its rights under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 and also Fed. R. Civ. P., Rule 54. 

For the reasons stated more fully in its attached brief, MPAS now moves for entry 

of summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P., Rule 56. Additionally, Plaintiff requests to 

substitute the new Sheriff of Wayne County as the defendant in this matter pursuant to 

Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 25(d). 

 Respectfully submitted, 

Dated: September 3, 2009 s/Chris E. Davis

 MICHIGAN PROTECTION & 

 ADVOCACY SERVICE, INC. 

 Attorney for Plaintiff 

 29200 Vassar Blvd., Suite 200 

 Livonia, MI 48152 

 (248) 473-2990 

 cdavis@mpas.org

 P52159 

 

2 

Case 2:09-cv-12224-DPH-RSW ECF No. 15, PageID.119 Filed 09/03/09 Page 2 of 29
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

MICHIGAN PROTECTION & 

ADVOCACY SERVICE, INC. 

 Case No. 2:09-cv-12224 

 Plaintiff, 

 Hon. Denise Page Hood 

v. 

WARREN C. EVANS, In his Official 

Capacity as Sheriff of Wayne County 

 Defendant. 

______________________________________/ 

Michigan Protection & Advocacy Service, Inc. Department of Corporation Counsel 

Chris E. Davis (P52159) James M. Surowiec (P49560) 

29200 Vassar Blvd., Suite 200 600 Randolph St., Suite 253 

Livonia, MI 48152 Detroit MI 48226 

Phone: (248) 473-2990 Phone: (313) 224-6682 

Email: cdavis@mpas.org Email: jsurowiec@co.wayne.mi.us 

Attorney for Plaintiff Attorney for Defendant 

_____________________________________/ 

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUBSTITUTION OF 

DEFENDANT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT, PERMANENT INJUNCTION, AND 

COSTS/ATTORNEY FEES

Case 2:09-cv-12224-DPH-RSW ECF No. 15, PageID.120 Filed 09/03/09 Page 3 of 29
TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES......................................................................................................... iii 

QUESTIONS PRESENTED.......................................................................................................... vi

INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................1 

PARTIES ........................................................................................................................................1 

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND..................................................................................................2 

BACKGROUND OF THE PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SYSTEM ..................................2 

FACTS ............................................................................................................................................5 

ISSUES ...........................................................................................................................................8 

THE COURT MAY ISSUE A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT A COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE 

IS REQUIRED UNDER THE PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY STATUTES TO DISCLOSE TO 

THE STATE PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SYSTEM ALL RECORDS RELATING TO TWO 

INMATES WHO COMMITTED SUICIDE WHILE IN THE COUNTY JAIL WHEN THERE IS NO 

KNOWN “LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE” FOR EITHER INDIVIDUAL. 

1. Standard for Summary Judgment 

2. The Inmates Are Persons Eligible For Services Under The P&A Statute 

3. Jails are covered facilities under both the PAIMI and DD Acts 

4. MPAS received a complaint and has probable cause to believe the individuals 

may have been subjected to abuse and/or neglect 

5. Under PAIMI, MPAS is entitled to access to all records concerning eligible 

persons when conducting an investigation into potential abuse or neglect and 

MPAS is not required to seek consent when there is no known legal representative 

to ask and the facility has failed to identify any such person when requested 

6. Under the DD and PAIR Acts MPAS is entitled to the records of an eligible 

person if the person dies and MPAS is not required to seek consent from anyone 

THE COURT SHOULD ISSUE A PERMANENT INJUNCTION REQUIRING THE DEFENDANT TO 

DISCLOSE RECORDS TO THE STATE’S PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SYSTEM WHEN THE 

PLAINTIFF WILL SUFFER IRREPARABLE HARM IF ITS FEDERAL MANDATES ARE 

INTERFERED WITH, THERE IS NO HARM TO THE DEFENDANT, AND IT IS IN PUBLIC’S 

INTEREST. 

i 

Case 2:09-cv-12224-DPH-RSW ECF No. 15, PageID.121 Filed 09/03/09 Page 4 of 29
1. Standard for Issuing a Permanent Injunction 

2. Balancing the Burdens on Each Party and Considering the Public Interest 

would favor the Court Granting Plaintiff’s Request 

THE DEFENDANT SHOULD BE ORDERED, PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. §1983, TO PAY 

PLAINTIFF’S REASONABLE COSTS AND ATTORNEY FEES WHEN THE DEFENDANT, 

ACTING UNDER COLOR OF LAW, HAS DENIED AND FRUSTRATED PLAINTIFF IN 

EXERCISING ITS RIGHTS UNDER FEDERAL LAW 

CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................18 

ii 

Case 2:09-cv-12224-DPH-RSW ECF No. 15, PageID.122 Filed 09/03/09 Page 5 of 29
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

Advocacy Center v. Stalder, 128 F. Supp. 2d 358 (M.D. La. 1999) .............................................18 

Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program v. J.S. Tarwater Developmental Center, 894 F. 

Supp. 424 (M.D. Ala. 1995), aff’d 97 F.3d 492 (11th Cir.1996)...........................................4, 9, 10 

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 106 S.Ct 2505 (1986). .................................................................8 

Audi AG v. D'Amato, 469 F.3d 534, 550 (6th Cir.Mich.2006) ................................................14, 15 

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 US. 317, 322-3; 106 S.Ct. 2548; 91 L.Ed.2d 265. (1986) ...............8 

Center for Legal Advocacy v. Hammons, 323 F.3d 1262 (10th Cir. 2003) ....................................4 

Connecticut Office of Protection and Advocacy v. Hartford Bd. of Ed., 355 F. Supp. 2d 

649, 653 aff’d on other grounds, 464 F.3d 229 (2nd Cir. 2006) ..................................................15 

Copeland v. Machulis, 57 F.3d 476, 478 (6th Cir.1995) ................................................................8 

eBay Inc., et al. v. MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388, 126 S.Ct. 1837, 1839, 164 

L.Ed.2d 641 (2006) .......................................................................................................................14 

Gonzaga University v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (2002) ..................................................................17, 18 

Iowa Protection and Advocacy Services, Inc. v. Gerard Treatment Programs (N.D. Iowa, 

June 14, 2002) ...............................................................................................................................14 

Iowa Protection and Advocacy Services, Inc. v. Gerard Treatment Programs, L.L.C., 152 

F.Supp.2d 1150 (June 25, 2001 N.D. Iowa) .................................................................................15 

Iowa Protection and Advocacy Services, Inc. v. Rasmussen, 206 F.R.D. 630, 2001 WL 

1809404 (S.D. Iowa 2002) ............................................................................................................16 

Maryland Disability Law Center, Inc. v. Mount Washington Pediatric Hospital, Inc. 106 

Md. App. 55, 664 A. 2d 16 (Md. Ct. of Special App. 1995) ..........................................................4 

Michigan Protection & Advocacy Service, Inc. v. Miller, 849 F. Supp. 1202 (W.D. Mich. 

1994) ...........................................................................................................................................4, 8 

Mississippi Protection & Advocacy System, Inc. v. Cotten, 1989 WL 224953 

(S.D.Miss1989), aff’d, 929 F. 2d 1054 (5th Cir 1991). ...............................................................4, 5 

iii 

Case 2:09-cv-12224-DPH-RSW ECF No. 15, PageID.123 Filed 09/03/09 Page 6 of 29
Office of Protection and Advocacy for Persons with Disabilities v. Armstrong, 266 

F.Supp.2d 303 (D. Conn. 2003) ....................................................................................................16 

Ohio Legal Rights Service v. Buckeye Ranch, Inc., 365 F.Supp.2d 877 (S.D.Ohio, 

2005) .............................................................................................................................................15 

Pennsylvania Protection and Advocacy, Inc. v. Houstoun, 228 F.3d 423 (3rd Cir. 2000)..............4 

Protection & Advocacy For Persons With Disabilities v. Armstrong, 226 F.Supp.2d 303, 

314 (D.Conn. 2003) ........................................................................................................................8 

Robbins v. Budke 739 F.Supp. 1479 (D.N.M. 1990) ......................................................................4 

Street v. Bradford & Co., 886 F.2d 1472 (6th Cir. 1989) ...............................................................8 

Wisconsin Coalition for Advocacy, Inc. v. Busby, No. 02-C-871 (E.D. Wi Sept. 24, 

2003) .............................................................................................................................................15 

Wisconsin Coalition for Advocacy, Inc. v. Czaplewski, 131 F. Supp. 2d 1039 (E.D. Wi. 

2001) .............................................................................................................................................15 

STATUTES AND RULES 

20 U.S.C. § 1232 ...........................................................................................................................17 

29 U.S.C. § 705 ...............................................................................................................................9 

29 U.S.C. § 794...................................................................................................................1, 4, 9,13 

42 U.S.C. § 1983............................................................................................................1, 17, 18, 19 

42 U.S.C. § 1988 .....................................................................................................................17, 18 

42 U.S.C. § 6000 .............................................................................................................................2 

42 U.S.C. § 10543 .........................................................................................................................18 

42 U.S.C. § 10801 ...........................................................................................................................3 

42 U.S.C. § 10802............................................................................................................................8 

42 U.S.C. § 10805 ....................................................................................................5, 10, 11, 13,18 

42 U.S.C. § § 10807-10827 ............................................................................................................1 

iv 

Case 2:09-cv-12224-DPH-RSW ECF No. 15, PageID.124 Filed 09/03/09 Page 7 of 29
42 U.S.C. § 12102............................................................................................................................9 

42 U.S.C. § 15043 ...........................................................................................................1, 5, 13, 14 

42 U.S.C. § 15102............................................................................................................................9 

34 C.F.R. § 381.5 ............................................................................................................................9 

42 C.F.R. § 51.2...................................................................................................................9, 10, 12 

42 C.F.R. § 51.41 ..........................................................................................................................11 

42 C.F.R. § 51.43 ..........................................................................................................................12 

45 C.F.R. § 51.7...............................................................................................................................8 

45 C.F.R. § 1386.19.......................................................................................................................10 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 25 ............................................................................................................................1 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 ..........................................................................................................................18 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 ..........................................................................................................................14 

M.C.L. 51.75 ...................................................................................................................................1 

M.C.L. 330.1931 ........................................................................................................................1, 2 

MI Const.Art.7, § 4 .........................................................................................................................1 

OTHER AUTHORITIES 

191 A.L.R. Fed 205 (org. 2004) ......................................................................................................2 

193 A.L.R. Fed 513 (org. 2003) ......................................................................................................2 

Cong. Hearings No. 99-50, Pt. II (1985)(Staff Report) ..................................................................3 

v 

Case 2:09-cv-12224-DPH-RSW ECF No. 15, PageID.125 Filed 09/03/09 Page 8 of 29
QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. SHOULD THE COURT ISSUE A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT A 

COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE IS REQUIRED UNDER THE PROTECTION 

AND ADVOCACY STATUTES TO DISCLOSE TO THE STATE 

PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SYSTEM ALL RECORDS RELATING TO 

TWO INMATES WHO COMMITTED SUICIDE WHILE IN THE COUNTY 

JAIL WHEN THERE IS NO KNOWN “LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE” FOR 

EITHER INDIVIDUAL?

Plaintiff answers: Yes. 

This Court should answer: Yes. 

2. SHOULD THE COURT ISSUE A PERMANENT INJUNCTION REQUIRING 

THE DEFENDANT TO DISCLOSE RECORDS TO THE STATE’S 

PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SYSTEM WHEN THE PLAINTIFF WILL 

SUFFER IRREPARABLE HARM IF ITS FEDERAL MANDATES ARE 

INTERFERED WITH, THERE IS NO HARM TO THE DEFENDANT, AND IT 

IS IN PUBLIC’S INTEREST? 

Plaintiff answers: Yes. 

This Court should answer: Yes. 

3. SHOULD THE DEFENDANT BE ORDERED, PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. 

§1983, TO PAY PLAINTIFF’S REASONABLE COSTS AND ATTORNEY 

FEES WHEN THE DEFENDANT, ACTING UNDER COLOR OF LAW, HAS 

DENIED AND FRUSTRATED PLAINTIFF IN EXERCISING ITS RIGHTS 

UNDER FEDERAL LAW? 

 Plaintiff answers: Yes. 

This Court should answer: Yes. 

 

vi 

Case 2:09-cv-12224-DPH-RSW ECF No. 15, PageID.126 Filed 09/03/09 Page 9 of 29
INTRODUCTION

The Plaintiff, Michigan Protection and Advocacy Service, Inc. (MPAS), requests 

this Honorable Court grant summary judgment with declaratory judgment of its rights 

and a permanent injunction enforcing its rights under the federal protection and advocacy 

laws, 42 U.S.C. § § 10807-10827, the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with 

Mental Illness Act of 1986 (PAIMI); 42 U.S.C. § 15043, Developmental Disabilities 

Assistance and Bill of Rights (DD) Act of 2000, and ; 29 U.S.C. § 794e(f), the Protection 

and Advocacy of Individual Rights (PAIR) Program of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as 

amended, against the Defendant for denying MPAS access to records concerning the 

deaths of two inmates at the Wayne County Jail. Additionally, MPAS requests this Court 

award it attorney fees and costs against the Defendant for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

and pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988. 

PARTIES

At the present time Warren C. Evans is no longer the Wayne County Sheriff. He 

recently resigned his position as sheriff in order to become the Chief of Police for the 

City of Detroit. However, this action was brought against him in his official capacity. A 

new Sheriff was named on July 24, 2009. MPAS seeks to substitute Benny Napolean, the 

new Sheriff, as defendant in place of Chief Evans pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d). 

Benny Napoleon is the Sheriff of Wayne County, Michigan, and acts as such 

pursuant to the provisions in the State Constitution, MI Const. Art. 7, § 4. Additionally, 

Defendant has responsibility for the operation of the jails within Wayne County, 

Michigan, pursuant to M.C.L. 51.75. 

1 

Case 2:09-cv-12224-DPH-RSW ECF No. 15, PageID.127 Filed 09/03/09 Page 10 of 29
Plaintiff MPAS is a non-profit Michigan corporation who has offices located in 

Lansing (main), Livonia, and Marquette, Michigan. The Governor of Michigan has 

designated MPAS as the state’s protection and advocacy system, pursuant to M.C.L.

330.1931 (1) with the responsibility to enforce and carry out the federal mandates under 

the PAIMI, DD Act and PAIR Acts. As the state’s protection and advocacy system

MPAS is required to and has the responsibility to monitor facilities and investigate 

allegations of abuse and neglect of persons with disabilities. M.C.L.A. 330.1931 (2). 

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

MPAS filed this complaint on June 9, 2009, seeking a declaratory judgment, and 

injunction and its costs and attorney fees. Pursuant to a stipulation of the parties and an 

order of the court [Docket Item # 13], the default of Defendant was set-aside, service of 

process was acknowledged as of August 3, 2009. Pursuant to said stipulation Defendant 

filed a timely answer on August 12, 2009. MPAS now moves for entry of summary 

judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. 

BACKGROUND OF THE PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SYSTEM

Shocked by the inhumane and despicable conditions at New York's Willowbrook 

State School and other similar facilities, Congress enacted the Developmental Disabilities 

Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 1975 (DD Act) to protect the human and civil rights 

of this population. 42 U.S.C. 6000 et seq.1

As an integral component of this Act, the Protection and Advocacy (P&A) 

System was established to ensure that these protections became a reality. In 2000, 

 

1

 The P&A access authorities have been reviewed in some legal publications. See, e.g., “Validity, 

Construction, and Operation of Protection and Advocacy for Mentally Ill Individuals Act, 42 U.S.C.A. 

Sections 10801 et seq.,” 191 A.L.R. Fed 205 (org. 2004); “Validity, Construction, and Operation of

Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act” 193 A.L.R Fed 513 (org. 2003). 

2 

Case 2:09-cv-12224-DPH-RSW ECF No. 15, PageID.128 Filed 09/03/09 Page 11 of 29
Congress passed the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 

2000, which repealed and replaced in its entirety the 1975 Act. This version of the DD 

Act enhanced the access authorities of P&As in a number of respects. 

Following congressional hearings and investigations, which substantiated 

numerous reports of abuse and neglect in state psychiatric facilities, Congress passed the 

Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness (PAIMI) Act of 1986. 42 

U.S.C. 10801 et seq. Congressional investigations found a myriad of examples from

across the country of instances of abuse and neglect, including sexual and financial 

exploitation; inadequate nutrition, healthcare and discharge planning; and generally 

deplorable living conditions. See Examining the Issues Related to the Care and 

Treatment of the Nation’s Institutionalized Mentally Disabled Persons: Joint Hearings 

Before the Comm. On Labor and Human Resources and the Subcomm. On Labor, Health 

and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies of the Senate Comm. On 

Appropriations, S. Hrg. No. 99-50, Pt. II (1985) (Staff Report). These conclusions are 

mirrored in the PAIMI Act's Statement of Purpose section, which states in part that 

"Congress finds that [i]ndividuals with mental illness are vulnerable to abuse and serious 

injury" and that "State systems for monitoring compliance with respect to the rights of

individuals with mental illness vary widely and are frequently inadequate." 42 

U.S.C. § 10801(a)(1) and (4). 

The PAIMI Act –modeled after the 1975 DD Act – provides parallel protections 

for individuals with mental illness using the same mechanisms as the DD Act. Under an 

additional statutory program (established under the Rehabilitation Act), the Protection 

and Advocacy for Individual Rights (PAIR) Program, P&As are authorized to use the 

3 

Case 2:09-cv-12224-DPH-RSW ECF No. 15, PageID.129 Filed 09/03/09 Page 12 of 29
same authorities – including access to records, as provided under the DD Act – to serve 

persons with disabilities who are not eligible under either the DD or PAIMI Acts. 29 

U.S.C. § 794e(f)(2). 

Courts have uniformly held that the P&A access authorities require facilities to 

permit the P&A to operate effectively, and with broad discretion and independence in 

gaining access to individuals, facilities, and records for investigative purposes. See, e.g. 

the following cases, which are discussed in later sections: Center for Legal Advocacy v. 

Hammons, 323 F.3d 1262 (10th Cir. 2003); Pennsylvania Protection and Advocacy, Inc. 

v. Houstoun, 228 F.3d 423 (3rd Cir. 2000); Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program v. 

J.S. Tarwater Developmental Center, 894 F. Supp. 424 (M.D. Ala. 1995), aff’d 97 F.3d 

492 (11th Cir.1996); Mississippi Protection & Advocacy System, Inc. v. Cotten, 1989 WL 

224953 (S.D.Miss. 1989), aff’d, 929 F. 2d 1054 (5th Cir 1991); Robbins v. Budke 739 

F.Supp. 1479 (D.N.M. 1990); Michigan Protection & Advocacy Service, Inc. v. Miller, 

849 F. Supp. 1202 (W.D. Mi 1994); Maryland Disability Law Center, Inc. v. Mount 

Washington Pediatric Hospital, Inc. 106 Md. App. 55, 664 A. 2d 16 (Md. Ct. of Special 

App. 1995). 

For instance, in Cotten, supra, the court ruled (under the DD Act) that facilities 

have an affirmative duty to implement policies and practices which promote effective 

access by P&As to their residents. The court described this obligation as follows: 

[The DD Act] gives to the institutionalized developmentally disabled the 

right to an effective protection and advocacy system.... The Act not only 

describes the range of services to be provided by the protection and 

advocacy systems, it also states that the systems "must have the authority"

to perform these services. The state cannot satisfy the requirements of the 

[DD Act] by establishing a protection and advocacy system which has this 

authority in theory, but then taking action which prevents the system from 

exercising that authority.1989 WL 224953, at 9 (emphasis added). 

4 

Case 2:09-cv-12224-DPH-RSW ECF No. 15, PageID.130 Filed 09/03/09 Page 13 of 29
In addition to having access to facilities both the PAIMI and DD Acts specify that 

a state’s P & A System is to have access to the records of protected individuals. See, the 

DD Act at 42 U.S.C. §15043(a)(2)(I) and (J) and the PAIMI Act at 42 U.S.C. 

§10805(a)(4). 

FACTS

On or about January 16, 2009, MPAS learned of the deaths of two inmates at the 

Wayne County Jail. 

Both inmates committed suicide while in the custody of the Wayne County 

Sheriff’s Department. Inmate #1, initials CC, was found dead in his cell on the morning 

of January 15, 2009. Later news accounts indicated he committed suicide by hanging 

himself. Inmate #2, whose identity is unknown, was found dead in his cell on the 

morning of January 14, 2009. EXHIBIT # 1. 

County jails are supposed to have policies and procedures in place to screen 

inmates for suicidal tendencies and to prevent suicides. The fact these inmates 

committed suicide indicates they had mental health issues that were not being addressed 

and therefore where possibly victims of abuse and/or neglect. 

Based upon the information in the reports it received, MPAS determined it had 

probable cause to open an investigation into deaths of the two inmates. EXHIBIT # 2. 

On or about January 28, 2009, MPAS advocate sent a request for records to 

Sheriff Warren C. Evans, requesting, “All documentation (including any incident reports, 

case notes, witness statements, mental health records, etc.) . . .” regarding each of the two 

inmates. This request was made pursuant to the PAIMI, DD and PAIR Acts. EXHIBIT # 

3. 

5 

Case 2:09-cv-12224-DPH-RSW ECF No. 15, PageID.131 Filed 09/03/09 Page 14 of 29
 On March 17, 2009, MPAS advocate again requested records regarding inmate 

#2, unidentified individual. This request was made pursuant to the PAIMI, DD and PAIR 

Acts. EXHIBIT # 4. 

On April 7, 2009, the Sheriff’s FOIA attorney sent a letter denying MPAS’ 

request for records relating to the suicide of Inmate CC. The letter stated PADD and 

PAIR were not applicable and that PAIMI did not require the release because the family 

of Inmate CC was looking into the matter. The letter also indicated the previous bill 

covered only records for their policy manuals. EXHIBIT # 5. 

On May 11, 2009, MPAS attorney sent letter to FOIA officer stating that 

interpretation of PAIMI was wrong, but at this time MPAS would try to cooperate by 

contacting the legal representatives of the inmates and reminding them that PAIMI Act 

required the Sheriff’s Office to make a prompt disclosure of the legal representatives and 

their contact information so MPAS may contact them. EXHIBIT # 6. 

On June 3, 2009, MPAS attorney spoke by telephone with the FOIA coordinator. 

The FOIA coordinator could not release contact information without approval from

corporate counsel and she did not know when or if approval would be granted. 

On June 11, 2009, Sheriff’s FOIA Attorney sent another letter, almost identical to 

the April 7, 2009 letter denying MPAS’ request regarding the unidentified inmate. The 

reasoning was the same as previous letter. EXHIBIT # 7. 

On or about June 24, 2009, the FOIA officer sent a letter to MPAS, which arrived 

on July 6, 2009, identifying two attorneys, Michael A. Rataj and Juan Rateo, which 

reportedly represent the estate of Inmate CC. EXHIBIT # 8. However, one of the 

alleged attorneys, Juan Rateo, is not listed as a member of the State Bar in Michigan. 

6 

Case 2:09-cv-12224-DPH-RSW ECF No. 15, PageID.132 Filed 09/03/09 Page 15 of 29
Sheriff’s Office did not send MPAS the name or contact information for the 

person who is the personal representative of inmate CC’s estate. According to newspaper 

reports, Inmate CC was a resident of Macomb Township in Macomb County Michigan. 

EXHIBIT # 1. A probate estate should have been opened for him in Macomb County 

Probate Court, however, a recent search of Macomb County Probate Court records 

indicate there is no estate case opened in the name of inmate CC. EXHIBIT # 9. A 

search of Wayne County Probate Court records produced the same result. EXHIBIT # 10. 

The death certificate for inmate CC indicates his county of residence as “Montmorecy 

[sic]” County, Michigan. MPAS has contacted Montmorency County Probate Court and 

was told there is no probate estate case for anyone by the name of inmate CC. It 

therefore appears there is no estate case open and no personal representative has been 

appointed to represent inmate CC’s estate. 

The Sheriff’s Office has not provided any information regarding the inmate 

whose identity is unknown despite having previously claimed that this person’s family 

had contacted the Sheriff’s Office and that they had legal Counsel. EXHIBITS # 5 & 7. 

ISSUES

A. THE COURT MAY ISSUE A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT A COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE IS 

REQUIRED UNDER THE PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY STATUTES TO DISCLOSE TO THE STATE 

PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SYSTEM ALL RECORDS RELATING TO TWO INMATES WHO 

COMMITTED SUICIDE WHILE IN THE COUNTY JAIL WHEN THERE IS NO KNOWN “LEGAL

REPRESENTATIVE” FOR EITHER INDIVIDUAL. 

1. Standard for Summary Judgment

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c), summary judgment may be granted “if the pleadings, 

depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the 

7 

Case 2:09-cv-12224-DPH-RSW ECF No. 15, PageID.133 Filed 09/03/09 Page 16 of 29
affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the 

moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Copeland v. Machulis, 57 F.3d 

476, 478 (6th Cir.1995). See also, 99 F.R.D. 465, 470 (1984). 

The moving party must show there is an “absence of a genuine issue of material 

fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 US. 317, 322-3; 106 S.Ct. 2548; 91 L.Ed.2d 265. 

(1986). The respondent must produce some evidence to raise a genuine issue to be 

submitted to the jury. “The respondent must adduce more than a scintilla of evidence to 

over come the motion.” Street v. Bradford & Co., 886 F.2d 1472 (6th Cir. 1989), 1479 

citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 106 S.Ct 2505 (1986), 2512 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 

L.Ed.2d 202. 

2. The Inmates Are Persons Eligible For Services Under The P&A Statutes

MPAS has probable cause to believe both inmates are protected under one or 

more of the P&A statutes. This is because both individuals exhibited mental impairment 

so severe and to the extent that it resulted in them taking their own lives. In one case, a 

District Court recognized that a person committing the act of suicide combined with the 

fact that prisons are known to house persons with mental illness was sufficient to 

establish probable cause that the individuals were eligible for services under the P&A 

System. Protection & Advocacy For Persons With Disabilities v. Armstrong, 226 

F.Supp.2d 303, 314 (D.Conn. 2003). relying in part on, Michigan Prot. & Advocacy 

Serv., Inc. v. Miller, 849 F.Supp. 1202, 1207 (W.D.Mich.1994)

Therefore, if they had a specific mental health diagnosis by a mental health 

professional they would be covered by the PAIMI Act. 42 U.S.C. §10802(4); 45 C.F.R. 

§51.7. Additionally, if either individual’s mental health impairment began before age 22 

8 

Case 2:09-cv-12224-DPH-RSW ECF No. 15, PageID.134 Filed 09/03/09 Page 17 of 29
and it resulted in substantially limiting three or more major life activities they would be 

covered under DD Act. 42 U.S.C. §15102(8). If they had a mental health impairment that 

resulted in a substantial limitation of a major life activity and if they do not qualify for 

services under DD or PAIMI Acts then they are eligible for services under PAIR Act. 29 

U.S.C. § 794e, 34 C.F.R. 381.5(b).2

Additionally, if the inmates are protected under the PAIR Act, PAIR mandates 

that persons falling under its protections shall have the same rights, be provided the same

services and the P &A system will have the same responsibilities and authority to assist 

them, as those persons protected under the DD Act. 29 U.S.C. § 794e(f)(2). Therefore, 

from this point forward I will discuss the DD and PAIMI Acts only. 

3. Jails are covered facilities under both the PAIMI and DD Acts

The P&A System was originally created with state mental hospitals in mind but 

facilities covered by the Acts are much broader. The regulations under the PAIMI and 

DD Acts make it clear that jails are covered facilities under both Acts. 42 C.F.R. § 51.2, 

45 C.F.R. 1386.193

 

2

 The authority for PAIR is found in 29 U.S.C. 794e, which provides for the protection and advocacy for 

rights of individuals with disabilities not covered under the Client Assistance Program, the DD Act and the 

PAIMI Act. The definition of “Disability” is found in 29 U.S.C. § 705 (9)(B) which states the definition

used in Title 42 section 12102 will be used for disability under Subchapter V (which is the subchapter 

containing the PAIR Act.). Title 42 section 12102 is 42 U.S.C. § 12102 and is the definition section of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act as Amended and contains the definition of disability. 

3 Facility includes any public or private residential setting that provides overnight care accompanied by

treatment services. 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 prisons, including all general areas as well as special mental health or forensic units. 42 C.F.R. 

§ 51.2 PAIMI Act Regulations. 

Facility includes any setting that provides care, treatment, services and habilitation, even if only “as 

needed” or under a contractual arrangement. Facilities include, but are not limited to the following:

Community living arrangements (e.g., group homes, board and care homes, individual residences and

apartments), day programs, juvenile detention centers, hospitals, nursing homes, homeless shelters, jails 

and prisons. 45 C.F.R. 1386.19 DD Act Regulations. 

9 

Case 2:09-cv-12224-DPH-RSW ECF No. 15, PageID.135 Filed 09/03/09 Page 18 of 29
4. MPAS received a complaint and has probable cause to believe the individuals 

may have been subjected to abuse and/or neglect. 

The newspaper articles and news reports can constitute a complaint both under the 

PAIMI Act, 42 C.F.R. §51.2, and the DD Act, 45 C.F.R. §1386.19. See also, Alabama 

Disabilities Advocacy Program v. J.S. Tarwater Developmental Center, 894 F.Supp. 424, 

498 (M.D. Ala.1995). (The Court held that the term “complaint” should be construed 

very broadly to protect and ensure the rights of persons with disabilities, determining that 

an anonymous voice message was sufficient to be a complaint.) 

Based on these complaints, newspaper articles, MPAS determined there was 

probable cause to open an investigation into the deaths of inmates #1 and #2. EXHIBITS 

#1 & 2. 

The purpose of MPAS investigation is to determine if either individual was the 

victim of abuse and/or neglect which cause or contributed to their deaths, to determine 

what if anything could have been done to prevent their deaths, and if appropriate, to make 

recommendations regarding policies and procedure to ensure it does not happen again. 

MPAS will in some cases make referrals to additional agencies that have jurisdiction and 

authority to monitor the facility in question and in some instances may pursue legal 

action on behalf of the person with disability or the estate of the person. 

5. Under PAIMI, MPAS is entitled to access to all records concerning eligible 

persons when conducting an investigation into potential abuse or neglect and MPAS 

is not required to seek consent when there is no known legal representative to ask 

and the facility has failed to identify any such person when requested.

 

MPAS’s authority to access records under the PAIMI Act is contained in 42 

U.S.C. § 10805(a)(4) (2009). The relevant part of which states that a state’s P& A 

System shall; 

10 

Case 2:09-cv-12224-DPH-RSW ECF No. 15, PageID.136 Filed 09/03/09 Page 19 of 29
(4) . . . have access to all records of-- 

(A) any individual who is a client of the system if such individual, or the

legal guardian, conservator, or other legal representative of such 

individual, has authorized the system to have such access;

(B) any individual (including an individual who has died or whose 

whereabouts are unknown)-- 

(i) who by reason of the mental or physical condition of such individual is

unable to authorize the system to have such access; 

(ii) who does not have a legal guardian, conservator, or other legal

representative, or for whom the legal guardian is the State; and 

(iii) with respect to whom a complaint has been received by the system or 

with respect to whom as a result of monitoring or other activities (either of 

which result from a complaint or other evidence) there is probable cause to 

believe that such individual has been subject to abuse or neglect; 

This standard is repeated in the PAIMI regulations at 42 C.F.R. § 51.41(b). There 

appears to be some disagreement as to the second condition on whether there is a 

“guardian, conservator, or other legal representative” to give consent and thus requiring 

MPAS to seek their consent. Wayne County Corporate Counsel in their letters of April 7, 

and June 11, 2009, claim that they were contacted by legal representatives of the estates 

of the two inmates and MPAS was required under PAIMI to seek the personal 

representative’s consent to the release of records. EXHIBITS # 5 & 7.4

 

4

 In their letter dated April 7, 2009, the Sheriff’s Office relies on 42 U.S.C. § 10805(a)(4)(A) to claim

MPAS must seek the authorization of the individual or their legal representatives. But parenthetical (A) 

only applies if the individual is alive. Parenthetical (B) applies when the person is dead or whereabouts is

unknown. This section only requires MPAS to seek authorization if the person has a legal representative. 

If there is no known legal representative and MPAS has received a complaint it is not required to seek an

authorization. 42 U.S.C. §10805 (a)(4)(B)(ii) and (iii). 

Additionally, the Defendant points to the unpublished decision in Michigan Protection &

Advocacy Service, Inc. v. Evans, (Docket No. 06-13273). Attached as EXHIBIT # 11. As the court will 

see, that decision is not factually on point with the current case. In that case, a personal representative had 

been appointed by probate court, the personal representative was the deceased’s mother, the estate was

taking legal action against the Sheriff to enforce rights of the estate, the Sheriff’s Office provided MPAS

with the contact information for the personal representative and MPAS did not seek her authorization.

In the current case, MPAS has agreed to contact the personal representative of the estate, the 

Sheriff’s Office has not provided the names of the personal representative, a check of several county

probate courts has not found any probate estate for inmate CC, one inmate is unknown, and no legal action

has been taken by the estate of either inmate to MPAS’ knowledge. All of these facts were highly 

significant to the Court in ruling as it did. Given the significant differences, the above cited case would not

provide guidance for our current case. 

11 

Case 2:09-cv-12224-DPH-RSW ECF No. 15, PageID.137 Filed 09/03/09 Page 20 of 29
MPAS responded on May 11, 2009, stating that while MPAS disagrees with their 

interpretation of the PAIMI Act, MPAS agreed to contact the personal representative of 

the estate of each inmate. However, under the PAIMI regulations the Sheriff’s Office

was required to provide their names and contact information, pursuant to 42 C.F.R. 

§51.43. EXHIBIT # 6. 

On July 6, 2009, MPAS received a letter from Ms. Katherine Ben-Ami, Lead 

Attorney/FOIA Coordinator. Her letter dated June 24, 2009, identifying two attorneys, 

Michael A. Rataj and Juan Rateo, which reportedly represent the estate of Inmate CC. 

However, one of the alleged attorneys Juan Rateo is not listed as a member of the State 

Bar in Michigan. She did not provide the name or contact information for the person 

who is the personal representative of inmate CC’s estate nor even confirm someone had 

in fact been appointed as personal representative. She did not provide any information 

regarding the inmate whose identity is unknown despite having previously claimed that 

this person’s family had contacted the Sheriff’s Office and that they had legal Counsel. 

EXHIBIT # 7. 

MPAS has made a good faith attempt to locate a personal representative of inmate 

CC by contacting the Macomb, Montmorency, and Wayne County Probate Courts to see 

if an estate has been opened. Each Probate Court stated there was no case open under 

inmate CC’s name. MPAS has no information regarding the other inmate. 

Even if this Court were to agree with the Defendant’s interpretation of the statute, 

the Defendant has failed to provide any information to MPAS that would allow MPAS to 

request consent from the legal representatives. Additionally, it’s not clear that a probate 

estate has been opened for either of these individuals or that anyone has been appointed 

12 

Case 2:09-cv-12224-DPH-RSW ECF No. 15, PageID.138 Filed 09/03/09 Page 21 of 29
as personal representatives of their estates. Finally, MPAS does not believe the personal 

representative of the estate qualifies as an “other legal representative” of the individual 

according to the PAIMI regulations. 42 C.F.R. § 51.2. 

In the present case, we have two persons that appear to have been so severely 

distressed that they took their own lives, they are unable to give consent, there are no 

known legal representatives for either individual, and MPAS has received a complaint 

that provides probable cause to believe they may have been the victims of abuse or 

neglect. This case meets the conditions set forth under 42 U.S.C. § 10805(a)(4)(B), 

which requires the Defendant to release to MPAS all records in its possession that relate 

to these two individuals. 

6. Under the DD and PAIR Acts MPAS is entitled to the records of an eligible 

person if the person dies and MPAS is not required to seek consent from anyone.

MPAS is entitled to the records of both inmates under the PAIR and DD Acts as 

well. The DD Act, which also applies to a person eligible for protection under PAIR, 

29 U.S.C. § 794e(f)(2) is clearer and more direct than PAIMI. Under the DD Act, if the 

individual has died, the P&A system is entitled to records of the individual and the P&A 

is not required to seek consent from anyone. 

The relevant part of the DD Act (at 42 U.S.C. 15043(a)(2)(J)) provides that the 

P&A shall: 

(i) have access to the records of individuals described in subparagraphs

(B) and (I) [42 U.S.C. 15043(a)(2)(B) and (I)], and other records that are 

relevant to conducting an investigation, under the circumstances described 

in those subparagraphs, not later than 3 business days after the system 

makes a written request for the records involved; and 

(ii) have immediate access, not later than 24 hours after the system makes 

such a request, to the records without consent from another party, in a 

situation in which services, supports, and other assistance are provided to 

an individual with a developmental disability– 

13 

Case 2:09-cv-12224-DPH-RSW ECF No. 15, PageID.139 Filed 09/03/09 Page 22 of 29
(I) if the system determines there is probable cause to believe that

the health or safety of the individual is in serious and immediate

jeopardy; or 

(II) in any case of death of an individual with a developmental 

disability. 

Thus, as a result of the reauthorization of the DD Act in 2000, the statute 

expressly provides that no consent of a third party is required to access records in the case 

of any death of an individual with a developmental disability or where the P&A is 

investigating an immediate threat to health or safety. 42 U.S.C. 15043(a)(2)(J)(ii)(II). 

This conclusion is supported by at least one case decision. In Iowa Protection and 

Advocacy Services, Inc. v. Gerard Treatment Programs (N.D. Iowa, June 14, 2002, 

unpublished) EXHIBIT # 12, the court issued a permanent injunction which essentially 

restates the requirements on access to records set forth in the DD Act of 2000 and applied 

these requirements to both persons with developmental disabilities and mental illness. 

THE COURT SHOULD ISSUE A PERMANENT INJUNCTION REQUIRING THE DEFENDANT TO 

DISCLOSE RECORDS TO THE STATE’S PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SYSTEM WHEN THE 

PLAINTIFF WILL SUFFER IRREPARABLE HARM IF ITS FEDERAL MANDATES ARE INTERFERED 

WITH, THERE IS NO HARM TO THE DEFENDANT, AND IT IS IN PUBLIC’S INTEREST. 

1. Standard for Issuing a Permanent Injunction

Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ. P. 65(d), a plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction must 

demonstrate that it has suffered irreparable injury, there is no adequate remedy at law, 

“that, considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy 

in equity is warranted,” and that it is in the public's interest to issue the injunction. Audi 

AG v. D'Amato, 469 F.3d 534, 550 (6th Cir.Mich.2006) citing, eBay Inc., et al. v. 

MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388, 126 S.Ct. 1837, 1839, 164 L.Ed.2d 641 (2006). 

Additionally, the movant must actually succeed on the merits of its claim and cannot rest, 

14 

Case 2:09-cv-12224-DPH-RSW ECF No. 15, PageID.140 Filed 09/03/09 Page 23 of 29
as it may when seeking a preliminary injunction, on a mere showing of a likelihood of 

success. 

2. Balancing the Burdens on Each Party and Considering the Public Interest 

would favor the Court Granting Plaintiff’s Request

The preceding section discussed the merits of MPAS claims and request for 

declaratory judgment and for brevity’s sake will not be repeated. The relative burdens on 

the Plaintiff and Defendant as well as the public interest favor the court granting 

plaintiff’s request for permanent injunction.

The burden on MPAS if it is not given access to the records is very substantial. 

MPAS cannot fulfill its mandate under federal and state law. MPAS cannot determine if 

there was abuse and/or neglect without reviewing the records. MPAS cannot continue 

with its investigation or make recommendations for changes in policy or procedure to 

prevent abuse and neglect in the future without the records. Failure of MPAS to fulfill its 

mandated role places it in jeopardy of losing its designation as the state’s P&A system. 

Even more importantly, persons with disabilities, the persons whose interests and rights 

MPAS seeks to protect, will be placed in greater jeopardy of being subjected to abuse 

and/or neglect. 

One Circuit and several District Courts have ruled that denial of records causes 

"irreparable harm" to the P&A system justifying either preliminary or permanent 

injunctive relief.

5

 

5

 • Connecticut Office of Protection and Advocacy v. Hartford Bd. of Ed., 355 F. Supp. 2d 649, 653 aff’d on

other grounds, 464 F.3d 229 (2nd Cir. 2006) (agreed with court holding that a “protection and advocacy 

system’s inability to meet its federal statutory mandate to protect and advocate the rights of disabled people 

constitutes irreparable harm”). 

• Ohio Legal Rights Service v. Buckeye Ranch, Inc., 365 F.Supp.2d 877 (S.D.Ohio, 2005, (citing Hartford

district court decision above).

• Wisconsin Coalition for Advocacy, Inc. v. Czaplewski, 131 F. Supp. 2d 1039 (E.D. Wi. 2001) (DD and 

PAIMI action against a nursing home seeking release of records of residents who died as a result of 

15 

Case 2:09-cv-12224-DPH-RSW ECF No. 15, PageID.141 Filed 09/03/09 Page 24 of 29
Inmates committing suicide in the County Jails of Michigan is a significant and 

important problem this state faces. Since September 2007 to the present, MPAS has 

investigated the suicides and deaths of eleven persons with disabilities in county jails in 

Michigan, from Marquette County to Wayne County. In addition, MPAS recently FOIA 

twenty-one county sheriff offices, geographically distributed across the state, requesting a 

list of all deaths that have occurred in their jails in the last five years. Of the sixteen 

offices that have answered, they reported ten suicides. (We are still waiting for Wayne’s 

answer). Additionally, there are numerous individuals that try to commit suicide that we 

don’t know about. These facts underscore the important public-interest-role MPAS plays 

by investigating and reviewing what happened in these deaths and trying to reduce or 

eliminate similar deaths in the future. MPAS is trying to save people’s lives. 

Given the substantial burden MPAS faces if the permanent injunction is 

not granted and the public interest in ensuring that persons with disabilities are 

 choking on food; preliminary injunction issued requiring the release to the P&A of each and every report, 

document and other record relating to the deceased patients, including those related to their deaths and any 

investigation thereof). 

• Iowa Protection and Advocacy Services, Inc. v. Gerard Treatment Programs, L.L.C., 152 F.Supp.2d 1150

(June 25, 2001 N.D. Iowa) (investigation of a children’s residential psychiatric facility that had engaged in

abusive restraint and seclusion practices; court concluded that the P&A had properly found a potential for 

an immediate threat to the health and safety of all of the residents). 

• Wisconsin Coalition for Advocacy, Inc. v. Busby, No. 02-C-871 (E.D. Wi Sept. 24, 

2003) (granting a permanent injunction, court ordered a county coroner to disclose to the P&A its report on

the investigation of the death of an inmate with mental illness, finding that access to coroners’ reports is

authorized under the PAIMI Act and that such reports must be produced promptly and may not be withheld

pending completion of related criminal investigations). 

• Iowa Protection and Advocacy Services, Inc. v. Rasmussen, 206 F.R.D. 630, 2001 WL 1809404 (S.D. 

Iowa 2002) (permanent injunction barring state certification agency from denying P&A access to its

investigative findings regarding a restraint-related death of a DD facility resident; in granting the 

injunction, the court gave great weight to the P&A’s argument that denial of access to these reports would 

cause it irreparable harm – i.e., replicating these reports through the P&A’s own investigation would be

time consuming and costly, and in the case of the committee minutes which had been sought, replication is

impossible). 

• Office of Protection and Advocacy for Persons with Disabilities v. Armstrong, 266 F.Supp.2d 303 (D. 

Conn. 2003) (permanent injunction against corrections department, upholding P&A's right under the

PAIMI Act to access records relating to the suicides of inmates). 

16 

Case 2:09-cv-12224-DPH-RSW ECF No. 15, PageID.142 Filed 09/03/09 Page 25 of 29
free from abuse and/or neglect the facts favor the Court granting Plaintiff’s

request. 

THE DEFENDANT SHOULD BE ORDERED, PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. §1983, TO PAY PLAINTIFFS

REASONABLE COSTS AND ATTORNEY FEES WHEN THE DEFENDANT, ACTING UNDER COLOR OF 

LAW, HAS DENIED AND FRUSTRATED PLAINTIFF IN EXERCISING ITS RIGHTS UNDER FEDERAL 

LAW 

A P&A system may bring an access authority action against state officials under § 

1983 in order to get attorney fees awarded as the prevailing party. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

provides relief against state officials who derive persons of any rights, privileges, or 

immunities under the Constitution or federal statutes.6

 If a party prevails in a Section 

1983 action, the court in its discretion, may allow such party a reasonable attorney’s fee 

as part of the costs. 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b). 

The U.S. Supreme Court most recently set the standards for a § 1983 action in 

Gonzaga University v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (2002), which involved whether there was a 

private right of action for a school’s violation of FERPA, 20 U.S.C. § 1232g. The Court 

held that if Congress wished to create new rights enforceable under § 1983, it must do so 

in clear and unambiguous terms. Id. at 290. The Court concluded that FERPA does not 

create any enforceable rights under § 1983 because FERPA's nondisclosure provisions 

contained no rights-creating language; have an aggregate, not individual, focus; and serve 

primarily to direct the Secretary of Education's distribution of public funds to educational 

 

6

 Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or

Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or 

other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities 

secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, 

or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act 

or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a 

declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any

Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the 

District of Columbia. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

17 

Case 2:09-cv-12224-DPH-RSW ECF No. 15, PageID.143 Filed 09/03/09 Page 26 of 29
institutions. Id. Although there have been no published decisions regarding P&A access 

authority under § 1983 since the Gonzaga decision in 2002, the court should find that 

MPAS is entitled to its attorneys’ fees because Congress clearly and unambiguously gave 

P&As the right to pursue legal remedies to ensure the protection of individuals with 

disabilities. 42 U.S.C. § 10805(a)(1)(B); 42 U.S.C. § 10543(a)(2)(A). 

 In Advocacy Center v. Stalder, 128 F. Supp. 2d 358 (M.D. La. 1999), the 

Louisiana P&A successfully brought a § 1983 action for declaratory and injunctive relief 

on the grounds that state prison officials had violated both the First Amendment and the 

PAIMI Act when they conditioned P&A access to inmates’ mental health records on the 

court first conducting an in camera review of records. The court held that the officials 

had deprived the P&A of its First Amendment right to communicate and consult with the 

individuals with mental illness it served. The court also held that the officials had 

violated § 1983 by depriving the P&A of its right to access records under the PAIMI Act, 

which expressly gave P&As the right to pursue legal remedies. 

Additionally, plaintiff requests costs and attorney fees pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 

54. In support of its request, an affidavit, receipts, and time record are attached. Exhibit 

13. MPAS reserves the right to seek costs and attorney fees from the present to the 

conclusion of this matter. If MPAS is the prevailing party, it will submit additional 

documentation. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, MPAS respectfully requests this Honorable Court to 

grant it summary judgment, and a permanent injunction requiring the Sheriff’s Office to

provide all records in their possession concerning inmates CC and the unidentified 

18 

Case 2:09-cv-12224-DPH-RSW ECF No. 15, PageID.144 Filed 09/03/09 Page 27 of 29
individual, and in the future to comply with the P&A Acts. Additionally, MPAS requests 

its costs and attorney fees for violation of its rights under § 1983 and pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1988. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Dated: September 3, 2009 s/Chris E. Davis

 MICHIGAN PROTECTION & 

 ADVOCACY SERVICE, INC. 

 Attorney for Plaintiff 

 29200 Vassar Blvd., Suite 200 

 Livonia, MI 48152 

 (248) 473-2990 

 cdavis@mpas.org

 P52159 

 

19 

Case 2:09-cv-12224-DPH-RSW ECF No. 15, PageID.145 Filed 09/03/09 Page 28 of 29
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on September 3, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing Plaintiff’s 

Motion for and Brief in Support of Substitution of Defendant, Summary Judgment, 

Permanent Injunction, and Costs/Attorney Fees with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF 

system which will send notification of such filing to the following: James M. Surowiec.

s/Chris E. Davis

MICHIGAN PROTECTION & 

ADVOCACY SERVICE, INC. 

29200 Vassar Blvd., Suite 200 

Livonia, MI 48152 

248-473-2990 

cdavis@mpas.org

P52159 

 

Case 2:09-cv-12224-DPH-RSW ECF No. 15, PageID.146 Filed 09/03/09 Page 29 of 29