Source: https://www.criminallegalnews.org/cln-litigation/pln-us-supreme-court-amicus-brief-in-goodman-v-georgia-right-of-disabled-prisoners-to-collect-damages-in-ada-cases-2005/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 20:27:28+00:00

Document:
Beckford v. Irvin, 49 F. Supp. 2d 170 (W.D.N.Y.
Clarkson v. Coughlin, 898 F. Supp. 1019 (S.D.N.Y.
Coleman v. Wilson, 912 F. Supp. 1282 (E.D. Cal.
Cummings v. Roberts, 628 F.2d 1065 (8th Cir.
Doe v. Coughlin, 697 F. Supp. 1234 (N.D.N.Y.
Howard v. City of Columbus, 521 S.E.2d 51 (Ga.
Johnson v. Hardin County, 908 F.2d 1280 (6th Cir.
Love v. McBride, 896 F. Supp. 808 (N.D. Ind.
Correctional Center, 103 F.3d 558 (7th Cir.
Madrid v. Gomez, 889 F. Supp. 1146 (N.D. Cal.
Newman v. Alabama, 349 F. Supp. 278 (D. Ala.
Roop v. Squadrito, 70 F. Supp. 2d 868 (N.D. Ind.
aff’d in relevant part, 679 F.2d 1115 (5th Cir.
School Board of Nassau County v. Arline, 480 U.S.
Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 520 U.S.
Yarbaugh v. Roach, 736 F. Supp. 318 (D.D.C.
the Handicapped: Hearing on H.R. 370 and H.R.
Private, 10 Days Can Be a Death Sentence, N.Y.
Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.
and has participated as amicus in several cases in this Court.
Georgia is one of the ACLU’s state affiliates.
18,000 health care professional members.
this advocacy more responsive to their unaddressed needs.
other inmates, and life-saving medical treatment.
opportunities to help prisoners improve their lives.
filed amicus briefs before various bodies, including U.S.
subject of numerous Human Rights Watch reports.
and largest legal organization addressing these concerns.
on behalf of people living with HIV or other disabilities.
indigent persons in New York City for more than 125 years.
of prisoners with physical and mental disabilities.
options of people who have been labeled mentally disabled.
governments, including prisons and correctional facilities.
Columbia. The NAD has no parent corporation.
be significantly affected by the Court’s decision in this case.
lack of independence under law.
fundamental human and civil rights.
dispositive in the case now before the Court.
disability.” S. Rep. No. 101-116, at 5 (1989); H.R. Rep. No.
101-485(II), at 28 (1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N.
reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 310 (citing USCCR Rep.
to discrimination against inmates with disabilities. S. Rep.
attention of the Federal Government.” (quoting testimony of Drew S.
Days, III, Assistant Att’y Gen. )).
disability discrimination against inmates in state prisons.
unable to get accessible transportation.”).
disabilities in prisons and jails. See Board of Tr. of the Univ.
water from his cell toilet or drinking fountain); Yarbaugh v.
constitutional liberties. See, e.g., Love v. McBride, 896 F.
Supp. 808, 809-10 (N.D. Ind. 1995), aff’d sub nom. Love v.
“contagious and noncontagious diseases and conditions”).
Rehabilitation Act”); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.1(c)(1).
irrational discrimination against those with diseases).
suitable toilet, as well as being improperly handcuffed.
Kiman v. N.H. Dep’t of Corr., 301 F.3d 13, 15-16 (1st Cir.
2002), withdrawn on other grounds, 310 F.3d 785 (1st Cir.
2002); see also Hunt v. Uphoff, 199 F.3d 1220 (10th Cir.
inmate suffering from heart attack).
Communicable diseases present another major challenge.
religious services based on HIV-positive status. Nolley v.
County of Erie, 776 F. Supp. 715, 717-18 (W.D.N.Y. 1991).
nation’s efforts to control the epidemic.”) (Hearing Before the H.
136 Cong. Rec. S9680, 9681 (daily ed. July 13, 1990) (statement of Sen.
quality of life for persons confronting AIDS.”).
privacy, id. at 734-36, and her due process rights. Id. at 738.
by states against HIV-positive prisoners. See, e.g., Casey v.
Lewis, 834 F. Supp. 1477, 1488-91 & nn.109 & 123 (D. Ariz.
HIV-positive prisoners alleging constitutional violations.
Commissions 135-54 (1990) (listing cases); Theodore M.
exclusion from opportunities available to other prisoners.
treatment of seriously mentally ill inmates to be appalling . . .
their actions that are the result of their mental illnesses.”).
solitary confinement.”); Madrid v. Gomez, 889 F. Supp.
systemic abuse of prisoners with mental illness by prisons).
with mental retardation and other developmental disabilities.
Similarly, in Ruiz v. Estelle, 503 F. Supp. 1265 (S.D.
incarceration for mentally retarded inmates.” Ruiz, 503 F.
assist mentally retarded inmates during disciplinary hearings.
In Clarkson v. Coughlin, 898 F. Supp. 1019 (S.D.N.Y.
programs and essential communications with physicians. Id.
with medical personnel. Id. at 1032-34, 1042-43; see also id.
female inmates from the few available assistive services. Id.
disabilities in violation of the United States Constitution.
See, e.g., Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849, 858 (9th Cir.
Constitution”); Koehl v. Dalsheim, 85 F.3d 86, 88-89 (2d Cir.
Amendment when prison deprived inmate of medicallyprescribed glasses); Bonner v. Ariz. Dep’t of Corr., 714 F.
see also City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 518 (1997).
prison gates.”) (citations omitted; emphasis added).
a “broad power indeed.” Lane, 541 U.S. at 518 (citing Mississippi Univ.
pattern of discrimination. Lane, 541 U.S. at 530.
the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
pattern of discrimination against prisoners with disabilities.
discrimination, Congress, as in Lane and South Carolina v.
right of action or imposing a reasonable accommodation requirement); S.
assert their rights” and “inadequacy of legal services”).
reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 329; see also S. Rep. No.
survey showing gaps in coverage of laws).
See also Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons: Hearings on H.R.
conditions of confinement and acute physical abuse and criminal acts).
discrimination statutes. See, e.g., Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.1301(b).
disabilities evinces the need for Congress’s chosen remedy.
“discrimination ‘in such critical areas as . . .
institutions”) (alteration in original; citation omitted).
between this Court’s decision in Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S.
of “confirming judicial documentation” absent from Title I.
Garrett, 531 U.S. at 376 (Kennedy, J., concurring).
of the Equal Protection Clause”).
proof underlying a Title II claim.
same political vortex that for years proved utterly ineffective.
Employment of People with Disabilities)).
disabilities in the prison context.
The judgment below should be reversed.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 12101
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 § 1630
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 § 37
 v.