Source: https://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=15211
Timestamp: 2017-10-20 05:26:07
Document Index: 607848410

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 12111', '§ 12001', '§ 504', '§ 12012', '§ 705', '§ 10805', '§ 12012', '§ 705']

On June 17, 2014, disabled prisoners and the Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program (ADAP) filed this class action lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, alleging that the Alabama Department of Corrections (ADOC) violated the Americans with ... read more >
On June 17, 2014, disabled prisoners and the Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program (ADAP) filed this class action lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, alleging that the Alabama Department of Corrections (ADOC) violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq., including the ADA Amendment Acts of 2008, 42 U.S.C. § 12001, and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Represented by Southern Poverty Law Center, ADAP, and private counsel, the plaintiffs alleged constitutionally inadequate medical care, inadequate mental health treatment and deprivation of due process prior to involuntarily medicating prisoners.
On September 8, 2015 order, the district court (Judge Myron H. Thompson) bifurcated the issues into two phases: Phase 1 would include the trial of issues brought under the Acts and non-mental health claims; and Phase 2 would include just mental health issues.
On March 15, 2016, after two years of extensive discovery, the parties submitted a joint motion for class action settlement, resolving all Phase 1 litigation. The court conducted a hearing on the motion on March 17, 2016.
On May 26, 2016, the parties jointly stipulated to the amended agreement. On June 13, 2016, the preliminary settlement approval order provisionally certified the putative Phase 1 class. The court found that the named plaintiffs have standing and preliminarily certified the putative Phase 1 class, defined as ““any current or future inmate in the physical custody of the Alabama Department of Corrections who has a disability as defined in 42 U.S.C. § 12012 and 29 U.S.C. § 705(9)(B), excluding those inmates whose disabilities relate solely to or arise from mental disease, illness, or defect.” See the Preliminary Settlement Approval Order.
In June 2016, the parties engaged in mediation with Magistrate Judge John Ott to negotiate the remaining claims. Discovery and settlement negotiations proceeded. On August 19, 2016, the plaintiffs moved to certify Phase II class.
On September 9, 2016, the district court (Judge Myron H. Thompson) approved the final settlement agreement in a consent decree. The agreement required the ADOC to:
evaluate all facilities that house disabled prisoners, and identify necessary changes.
provide reasonable accommodations for disabled prisoners to access the programs.
perform initial screening for disabilities and a physical examination; test new prisoners for intellectual and developmental disabilities; and re-evaluate for changes in disability status.
not increase a prisoner's security level solely based upon a disability, but have discretion to lower a level based upon a disability.
provide auxiliary aids and services to prisoners with hearing and vision impairments.
designate employees, create plans, and run drills to evacuate disabled prisoners in the event of an emergency
implement a procedure for prisoners' requests for accommodations and appeals of denials and an ADA coordinator for each of its facilities to handle ADA requests, process appeals, produce monthly reports, and assess compliance.
provide initial and annual ADA training to correctional officers and enhanced training to ADA coordinators
create a quality-assurance program including audits of the identification of disabled prisoners and of accommodation requests.
The agreement also contains the following provisions related to implementation:
The ADAP will monitor the ADOC's compliance with the consent decree, and will be entitled to access relevant documents and to conduct interviews with prisoners and staff. The ADAP will prepare quarterly reports and recommendations on the ADOC’s compliance.
Claims that the ADOC is not in compliance must be resolved in arbitration.
This consent decree will terminate after six years if no extension is granted.
The ADOC will pay attorneys’ fees and costs of $1.25 million plus additional fees.
On September 23, 2016, defendants moved for summary judgment on the individual plaintiff’s Phase 2 claims, which was granted in part and denied in part by the court in November of 2016. The district court dismissed six individual plaintiffs’ claims as moot for their transfer or release from a jail moots the individual claim for relief. The court decided to proceed with trial regarding mental-health Eighth Amendment claims and involuntary-medication due-process claims. 2016 WL 6949598 (M.D. Ala. 2016).
On September 28, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a fifth amended complaint, alleging that overcrowding of ADOC facilities was continuing to lead to rapid contagion, and that custodial understaffing led to prisoners missing medical appointments.
On November 25 2016, the district court granted summary judgment to ADAP on the issue of its associational standing under the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act (PAIMI), 42 U.S.C. § 10805; therefore, the court said, ADAP could bring the mental-health care Phase 2A claims. See Dunn v. Dunn, 2016 WL 6949585 (M.D. Ala. 2016). On the same day, the district court certified two classes: (1) a class of all persons with a serious mental-health disorder or illness who are now, or will in the future be, subject to defendants’ mental-health care policies and practices in ADOC facilities; and (2) a class of all persons with a serious mental-health disorder or illness who are now, or will in the future be, subject to defendants’ formal involuntary-medication policies and practices. See Clearinghouse document -0021
Trial for Phase 2A was held in January 2017. On January 11, 2017, the Parties mutually agreed to the Settlement Agreement of Phase 2A Mental Health ADA Claims.
On January 19, 2017, the district court (Judge Thompson) issued a temporary restraining order, to remain in effect until the court finally approved or rejected the parties’ Phase 2 settlement agreement. The order required the ADOC to provide Adaptive Behavior/Life Skills Training for prisoners with intellectual disability, prisoners who meet IQ prong and the Adaptive Behavior, and any other inmate whom ADOC determines would substantially benefit from training. Those prisoners will be assigned a Case Manager to evaluate Program courses on decision making, stress management, communication skill building, risk taking consequences, self help, accessing prison services, and prison rules. See Clearinghouse document -0023
On February 22, 2017, Judge Thompson issued Phase 2A opinion and order preliminarily approving Phase 2 settlement agreement and certified Phase 2 class of “any current or future inmate in the physical custody of the Alabama Department of Corrections who has a disability as defined in 42 U.S.C. § 12012 and 29 U.S.C. § 705(9)(B) relating to or arising from mental disease, illness, or defect.” The order required ADOC to provide notice of the proposed settlement agreement and to collect comments from class members by April 5, 2017. See Clearinghouse document -0022
As of March 21, 2017, the litigation is ongoing. A fairness hearing is set on June 2, 2017. Parties will have the opportunities to file briefs concerning the proposed settlement agreement. The court will determine from whom it intends to hear oral testimony after receiving comments and objections.
Plaintiff Description Plaintiffs are individuals and advocacy organization for disabled persons in Alabama.
Phase 2A ADAP Summary Judgment Opinion [ECF# 1009] (2016 WL 6949585) (M.D. Ala.)
PC-AL-0035-0017.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Phase 2A Individual Plaintiffs Summary Judgment Opinion [ECF# 1011] (2016 WL 6949598) (M.D. Ala.)
PC-AL-0035-0018.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
PC-AL-0035-0004 | PC-AL-0035-0005 | PC-AL-0035-0006 | PC-AL-0035-0007 | PC-AL-0035-0008 | PC-AL-0035-0013 | PC-AL-0035-0014 | PC-AL-0035-0015 | PC-AL-0035-0017 | PC-AL-0035-0018 | PC-AL-0035-0020 | PC-AL-0035-0021 | PC-AL-0035-0022 | PC-AL-0035-0023 | PC-AL-0035-9000
Plaintiff's Lawyers Baxter, Glenn Nelson (Alabama)
PC-AL-0035-0019 | PC-AL-0035-9000
Cho, Eunice (Georgia)
Clotfelter, Patricia (Alabama)
Debrosse, Diandra S. (Alabama)
Haskell, Miriam Fahsi (Florida)
Howard, Ebony G. (Alabama)
Kendrick, Corene (New York)
McCrary, Latasha Lanette (Alabama)
Menschel, Brooke (Alabama)
PC-AL-0035-0001 | PC-AL-0035-0003 | PC-AL-0035-0009 | PC-AL-0035-0010 | PC-AL-0035-0011 | PC-AL-0035-0012 | PC-AL-0035-0016 | PC-AL-0035-0019 | PC-AL-0035-9000
Mujumdar, Anil A. (Alabama)
Osorno, Jaqueline (Alabama)
Rosen, Brent L. (Alabama)
Somerville, William G III (Alabama)
Walsh, Andrew Philip (Alabama)
Zarzaur, Gregory M. (Alabama)
Defendant's Lawyers Addison, Alyce Robertson (Alabama)
Coleman, Bryan Arthur (Alabama)
Corhern, Steven C. (Alabama)
Dorr, Luther Maxwell Jr. (Alabama)
Edwards, Michael Leon (Alabama)
Getty, John Eric (Alabama)
Han, Susan Nettles (Alabama)
Marler, Melissa K. (Alabama)
McAdory, Janine McKinnon (Alabama)
Moltz, Evan Patrick (Alabama)
Naramore, John W. (Alabama)
Reeves, Matthew (Alabama)
Rogers, Stephen C. (Alabama)
Stewart, Joseph Gordon Jr. (Alabama)