Source: https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/603-F-3d-365-7th-Cir-2010-08-3183-Indiana-Protection-and-Advocacy-Services-v-Indiana-Family-and-Social-Services-Admin-597150678
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 00:29:10+00:00

Document:
603 F.3d 365 (7th Cir. 2010), 08-3183, Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services v. Indiana Family and Social Services Admin.
Opinion Judge: HAMILTON, Circuit Judge.
Judge Panel: Before EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, and POSNER, FLAUM, KANNE, ROVNER, WOOD, WILLIAMS, SYKES, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.[*] POSNER, Circuit Judge, concurring. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, dissenting.
INDIANA FAMILY AND SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION; Anne W. Murphy, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration; Gina Eckhart, in her official capacity as Director of the Division of Mental Health and Addiction; and Larry Lisak, in his official capacity as Superintendent of Larue Carter Memorial Hospital, Defendants-Appellants.
Seth M. Galanter (argued), Morrison & Foerster LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Thomas M. Fisher (argued), Office of the Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, for Defendants-Appellants.
Alisa B. Klein (argued), Department of Justice, Civiol Division, Appellate Staff, Jonathan Lave, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, LLP, Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae.
Pursuant to the federal Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act of 1986 (" the PAIMI Act" ), 42 U.S.C. § 10801 et seq., the district court ordered Indiana state officials and a state agency to give plaintiff Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services (" IPAS" ) access to records of two mentally ill patients in a state hospital. On appeal, a panel of this court reversed, finding that the Eleventh Amendment and the lack of a statutory cause of action barred the action. Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services v. Indiana Family and Social Services Admin., 573 F.3d 548, 550-52 (7th Cir.2009). We granted rehearing en banc and hold: (1) the Eleventh Amendment does not bar plaintiff IPAS from seeking injunctive and declaratory relief against named state officials; (2) the PAIMI Act itself provides a cause of action for injunctive and declaratory relief to enforce the Act; and (3) plaintiff is entitled to access to peer review records of treatment of covered mentally ill patients. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court as modified to direct that the relief runs only against the named state officials in their official capacities.
Upon finding that " individuals with mental illness are vulnerable to abuse and serious injury" Congress enacted the PAIMI Act in 1986 to " ensure that the rights of individuals with mental illness are protected" and to " assist States to establish and operate a protection and advocacy system for individuals with mental illness which will ... protect and advocate the rights of such individuals through activities to ensure the enforcement of the Constitution and Federal and State statutes...." 42 U.S.C. §§ 10801(a)(1), (b)(1), (b)(2)(A). The Act provides funding for a state on the condition that the state designates a " protection and advocacy system" to accomplish these goals. 42 U.S.C. § 10803(2)(A). The Act gives each state a choice. The designated protection and advocacy system may be either an independent state agency or a private entity. 42 U.S.C. § 15044(a) (Developmental Disabilities and Bill of Rights Act), incorporated by reference in 42 U.S.C. § 10802(2). IPAS, an independent state agency, is Indiana's designated protection and advocacy system under the PAIMI Act. Like any protection and advocacy system, it has the power to contract with other agencies or individuals to help provide its services. 42 U.S.C. § 10804.
system to have such access; (ii) who does not have a legal guardian ...; and (iii) with respect to whom ... there is probable cause to believe that such individual has been subject to abuse or neglect." 42 U.S.C. § 10805(a)(4)(B).
the authority to ... pursue administrative, legal, and other appropriate remedies to ensure the protection of individuals with mental illness who are receiving care or treatment in the State; and pursue administrative, legal, and other appropriate remedies on behalf of an individual who ... was [an] individual with [a] mental illness; and ... is a resident of the State, but only with respect to matters which occur within 90 days after the date of discharge of such individual from a facility providing care or treatment.
Prior to instituting any legal action in a Federal or State court on behalf of a[n] individual with mental illness, an eligible system, or a State agency or non-profit organization which entered into a contract with an eligible system under section 10804(a) of this title, shall exhaust in a timely manner all administrative remedies where appropriate. If, in pursuing administrative remedies, the system, agency, or organization determines that any matter with respect to such individual will not be resolved within a reasonable time, the system, agency, or organization may pursue alternative remedies, including the initiation of a legal action.
The PAIMI Act requires that the designated system, whether it is a public or private entity, " shall be independent of any agency which provides treatment or services (other than advocacy services) to individuals with mental illness" 42 U.S.C. § 10805(a)(2). In states like Indiana, in which the governing authority of the agency is a multi-member governing board, the governor may appoint no more than one-third of the board members. 42 U.S.C. §§ 10802(2), 15044(a)(2). Consistent with that requirement, IPAS is governed by a board of thirteen persons. Four are appointed by the governor. The other nine are appointed by majority vote of the governing board itself. Ind.Code § 12-28-1-6(a). No board member may be an official or employee of any state agency that delivers services to the population served by IPAS. Ind.Code § 12-28-1-6(b). Having designated IPAS as the state's protection and advocacy system, Indiana is prohibited from redesignating a different agency or entity without " good cause." 42 U.S.C. § 15043(a)(4)(A).

References: v. 
 § 10801
 v. 
 § 10803
 § 15044
 § 10802
 § 10804
 § 10805
 § 10805
 § 12
 § 12
 § 15043