Opinion ID: 4238479
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The 1994 Stipulation Concerning Fort Stanton

Text: In 1994, New Mexico elected to close Fort Stanton by 1995 and to transfer all of the residents at the institution to community-based services. In April 1994, the parties filed a joint motion under Rule 60(b) and Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367 (1992), to modify portions of the district court’s 1990 Order, and to terminate the 1990 Order’s requirements as to Fort Stanton upon closure of that facility. The district court found the parties’ joint motion “well-taken” and determined that “the proposed modification is consistent with the rights of the classmembers.” JA Vol. 3 at 582. As a result, the court relieved Defendants from making further improvements to Fort Stanton. In doing so, the court stated, “[i]n the event that all classmembers have been transferred from Fort Stanton to appropriate settings by July 31, 1995, this Order and all portions of the [1990 Order] concerning corrections of deficiencies . . . at Fort Stanton will hereby be terminated.” Id. at 584. 3. The 1997 Joint Stipulation on Disengagement (JSD) and Plan of Action In October 1997, the parties presented the court with the JSD, a Plan of Action, and a joint motion requesting the court’s approval of the JSD. According to the parties’ stipulation, the JSD “does not seek a remedy for past violations of Plaintiffs’ constitutional and statutory rights.” JA Vol. 7 at 1403. It is instead designed to prevent future harm by ensuring that “Plaintiffs’ rights are not violated in the community settings.” Id. at 1394. To that end, the JSD “defines the further actions and requirements” that Defendants had to complete, “and the services, 8 supports, and benefits” that Defendants had to provide to class members, in order for Defendants to comply with their obligations under the court’s existing orders. JA Vol. 4 at 622. The JSD acknowledges Defendants’ “substantial efforts to develop a nondiscriminatory service system for persons with developmental disabilities and to provide appropriate community living arrangements and supports to classmembers.” Id. at 620. And it states Defendants had made “efforts to reasonably accommodate the residents of Fort Stanton and Los Lunas in community settings.” Id. at 621. As a result of those efforts, Fort Stanton closed in March 1995 when all its residents had transitioned to community settings, and Los Lunas closed in July 1997 when its last resident transitioned to the community. The JSD also includes a process for judicial disengagement of Defendants’ decree obligations. And it identifies the “Continued Improvement of Community Services” as an area subject to disengagement. The Continuous Improvement obligations address “a quality improvement approach that requires Defendants to achieve a certain score on an annual audit.” Jackson III, 2016 WL 9777237, at  (internal quotation marks omitted). In the order denying Defendants’ Rule 60(b)(5) motion that is the subject of this appeal, the district court recognized that Defendants have achieved disengagement from fifty-six of the seventy Continuous Improvement obligations. Id. The parties identified additional obligations in the Plan of Action, which Defendant Department of Health developed “to [e]nhance the Community Service 9 System” for persons with developmental disabilities. JA Vol. 4 at 629. The Plan of Action contains “a narrative, desired outcomes, and specific activities for thirteen components of the community service system.”4 Id. Those thirteen components are contained in the Plan of Action’s thirteen attached appendices. Two more appendices were later added by consent of the parties. After holding a fairness hearing, the district court issued, in December 1997, an order approving the JSD and the Plan of Action. The court noted the JSD “does not call for immediate dismissal of this lawsuit,” but instead “contemplates continued judicial oversight that could extend well into the next [millennium].” Id. at 801. The court further observed that the JSD “states the parties’ intention to fulfill most of the activities described in the Plan of Action by December 31, 1998, but makes an exception for certain requirements that may not be met until December 31, 2000.” Id. 4. The 2005 Stipulation to Resolve Motion for Noncompliance (Appendix A) In May 2004, Plaintiffs moved for an order to show cause and for further remedial relief to require Defendants to comply with the court’s December 1997 order approving the JSD and the Plan of Action. In June 2004, Plaintiffs moved for an Order to Reengage Effective Case Management, Desired Outcome A, Under the Plan of Action. 4 The thirteen components are (1) quality enhancement, (2) community incident management system, (3) training, (4) management information systems, (5) individual service planning, (6) case management, (7) behavioral services, (8) crisis response, (9) sexuality, (10) supported employment, (11) assistive technology, (12) medical services, and (13) regional offices. 10 In May 2005, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation on Agreed Actions to Comply with Joint Stipulation of Disengagement and Plan of Action and to Resolve Pending Motions to Show Cause and to Re-engage (2005 Stipulation). Attached to the 2005 Stipulation is “Appendix A[:] Agreed Actions to Address Contempt Motions” (Appendix A). JA Vol. 10 at 1903. The 2005 Stipulation states that it “is intended to obligate Defendants to take certain actions outside the Plan of Action as more specifically outlined in Appendix A.” Id. at 1898. “[T]he actions identified in Appendix A are intended to facilitate compliance with the JSD, to promote completion of . . . Audit Recommendations, to further address Case Management even though Plan of Action Desired Outcomes related to Case Management have been previously disengaged by an order of the Court and to address certain aspects of Vocational Rehabilitation.” Id. at 1898–99. The 2005 Stipulation clarifies that it is not intended to change or modify the terms of the JSD, which remain in effect. And it further states that Defendants “agree to implement all of the actions identified and listed in Appendix A,” and that the parties agree some of the Appendix A actions supplanted or modified activities listed in the Plan of Action. Id. at 1899. Appendix A imposes 107 specific obligations on Defendants. Some of the obligations are identified as “complete,” while many obligations were scheduled to be completed by May 2006 or in 2007. Although those deadlines were not met, Defendants represent that one third of the activities in Appendix A have been disengaged. Jackson III, 2016 WL 9777237, at . 11 The district court issued an order adopting the parties’ stipulation the same day the parties submitted it. 5. The 2012 Order In mid-July 2010, Plaintiffs filed another Motion for Further Remedial Relief to Remedy Noncompliance. After full briefing, the district court denied the motion without prejudice so Plaintiffs could refile after an evidentiary hearing scheduled for June 2011. On April 26, 2011—the day before the pretrial conference for the evidentiary hearing—Defendants filed a Rule 60(b)(5) motion to terminate all remaining orders and to conclude the court’s oversight. Defendants maintained that they have made more than a reasonable effort to comply with the court’s orders, that they have substantially complied with all existing orders, and that changed factual conditions make continuing compliance substantially more onerous. The court held the motion in abeyance and suspended briefing on it until the completion of the evidentiary hearing, which occurred from June 13 to June 17, 2011. Jackson III, 2016 WL 9777237, at . The court later terminated the pending Rule 60(b)(5) motion without deciding its merits. Id. at  n.12. In November 2011, after the evidentiary hearing, Plaintiffs filed a Renewed Motion for Further Remedial Relief to Remedy Noncompliance. Plaintiffs argued that Defendants had failed to comply with the JSD, the Plan of Action, Appendix A, the Rehabilitation Act, and the ADA (collectively, decrees). Plaintiffs also asked the court to appoint a Jackson Compliance Administrator (Compliance Administrator) to 12 oversee and ensure Defendants’ compliance. In October 2012, the district court issued a 206-page, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (2012 Order). The court praised Defendants’ “innovations and progress,” but determined that Defendants were still in substantial noncompliance with the decree obligations. JA Vol. 25 at 5303. Indeed, the court identified instances of noncompliance in the areas of health, safety, and supported employment. Based on the evidence before it, however, the court stated it “is unable to conclude that Defendants have violated the Rehabilitation Act and ADA.” The court explained: To start with, the Court could not conclude that Defendants have discriminated against severely disabled class members with respect to the provision of health care services. In fact, the Court commends Defendants for accommodating those severely disabled class members who live in rural New Mexico by providing them meaningful access to health care services . . . and for developing more and better health care services directed to severely disabled persons. There is, however, a question as to whether Defendants violated the Rehabilitation Act and ADA by intentionally denying severely disabled class members supported employment services equivalent to those received by less severely disabled persons. Unfortunately, that question of disparate treatment cannot be analyzed at this time, but must be further briefed. On the other hand, the Court was unable to find a violation of the Rehabilitation Act and ADA when severely disabled class members choose to participate in segregated, congregate day services while less severely disabled persons more often chose to engage in supported employment. Id. at 5304–05. The court also noted that Defendants “are close to substantially complying with [their] obligations,” and suggested that “the parties reconsider the descriptions of the more broadly stated obligations and restate them in language that makes the 13 obligations achievable.” Id. at 5303–04. After all, “many of the obligations are described in language that is more aspirational in nature than operational.” Id. at 5304. Finally, the court granted Plaintiffs’ request to appoint a Compliance Administrator, who could “prod Defendants into final substantial compliance.”5 Id. at 5305. 6. The 2015 Revised Table IV After the district court issued its 2012 Order, the parties were to develop a consolidated remedial plan in the areas of health, safety, and supported employment to address the identified violations. See Jackson III, 2016 WL 9777237, at . The parties, counsel, the Compliance Administrator, and the court then worked together for over two years before finalizing a consolidated plan. Id. In June 2015, the parties jointly filed the 2015 Revised Table IV—which is a final list of objectives in the areas of health, safety, and supported employment— along with evaluative components (or disengagement criteria) and projected completion dates for each objective. In November 2015, the parties jointly filed a Stipulated Agreement on Disengagement Process for Revised Table IV. Under the 5 After the court issued its 2012 Order, Plaintiffs moved to modify the 2012 Order with respect to their claims under the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA. Plaintiffs asked the court to delete its findings and conclusions “on all discrimination claims regarding severity of disability and segregation,” to strike those portions of their November 2011 Renewed Motion for Remedial Relief to Remedy Noncompliance based on the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA, and to vacate the pertinent sections from its 2012 Order. JA Vol. 25 at 5308–09. The court denied the motion to modify, but, on its own initiative, granted Plaintiffs leave to file a motion seeking relief on their disparate treatment claim. Plaintiffs never filed a motion seeking relief on that claim. 14 agreed-upon disengagement process, Defendants would submit a request for disengagement of a specific decree objective to the Compliance Administrator, who would then make a written “determination” on whether the disengagement criteria had been met. If the Compliance Administrator did not agree that the criteria had been met, then Defendants could withdraw their request for a determination or pursue a disengagement motion with the court. The court noted that, as of May 2016, the Compliance Administrator had issued approximately three determinations on Defendants’ requests, with roughly 197 decree obligations remaining for which the Compliance Administrator had not issued preliminary determinations. Jackson III, 2016 WL 9777237, at  n.20. The court also stated Revised Table IV did not replace or modify existing decree obligations that were not the subject of Plaintiffs’ Renewed Noncompliance Motion and the court’s 2012 Order. Id. at . Thus, Defendants must demonstrate substantial compliance with the earlier outstanding decree obligations, in addition to those listed in Revised Table IV. Id. The court estimated that, between the JSD, the Plan of Action, Appendix A, and Revised Table IV, Defendants must still show substantial compliance with approximately 307 decree obligations. Id. at . B. District Court’s Denial of Defendants’ Rule 60(b)(5) Motion In August 2015, Defendants filed their current motion under Rule 60(b)(5), arguing that factual circumstances have changed to the extent that the district court should vacate all remaining orders and conclude its oversight entirely. Defendants identified four changed factual circumstances they claim warrant vacatur of all 15 pertinent decrees and termination of the case. First, Defendants argued that their decree obligations have increased in number and complexity to the point they will never be able to satisfy the “labyrinth of obligations” that are ever-changing, everincreasing, and not subject to objective measurement. Jackson III, 2016 WL 9777237, at . Second, Defendants argued that some of their obligations are now outdated: 1) the JSD provisions about community practice improvements at [Los Lunas], which are no longer relevant as that institution closed in 1997; 2) the JSD formulate for disengagement of the Continuous Improvement outcomes, which is “convoluted,” “confusing,” and “unworkable”; 3) the JSD Continuous Improvement obligations that “are no longer programmatically sound and are no longer the desire” of [class members],” and that are not relevant to the present-day needs of [class members]; 4) the 1997 Plan of Action obligations that have been “morphed into new requirements” under Revised Table IV and that are “long detached from remedying the original constitutional issues”; and 5) Appendix A obligations that consist of vague and aspirational language, making disengagement impossible. Id. at  (citations omitted). Third, while conceding they have not substantially complied with all their decree obligations, Defendants maintained they have remedied all constitutional violations. Id. They argued they have thus attained the “objects” of the consent decrees, and they have corrected all eighteen areas of deficiencies the district court identified in its 1990 Order. Id. at 12–13. And if more is required, they insisted, this case will remain a never-ending process of continuing quality control. Id. at 12. Fourth, Defendants argued that the increased litigation costs inhibit New Mexico’s ability to fund other important programs. Id. at –13. For instance, New 16 Mexico has spent more than $50 million related to this litigation in the last eight years. Id. at . And, as of 2009, the average yearly cost to provide services to class members had risen from $67,290.00 to $135,535.00 per class member, while New Mexico’s $32,992.00 per capita income was the ninth lowest in the United States. Id. at . Based on these four changed circumstances, Defendants contended that notions of federalism supported their request for relief. Indeed, they argued that federalism concerns are heightened here because the consent decrees have the effect of dictating state and local budget priorities and improperly depriving state officials of their designated legislative and executive powers. Id. at . In an order issued in June 2016, the court ruled that Defendants had not met their burden to show the existence of a significant change in fact warranting vacatur of all pertinent orders and termination of the case. First, the court stated that “while Defendants’ obligations are onerous,” Defendants never identified when these asserted changed factual circumstances occurred; indeed, “[s]ome of the complained about developments have been happening for years.” Id. at . Next, the court concluded that Defendants have not shown that the objects of the pertinent decrees have been attained. While the court recognized that the decrees were designed to restore class members to the position they would have occupied absent violations of federal law, the court stated that the “more specific ‘essential purposes’” of those decrees “are to provide class members with adequate health care, a reasonably safe environment, and supported employment opportunities.” Id. 17 (quoting 2012 Order at 33). And based on Defendants’ concessions that they have not substantially complied with all the decree obligations, the court concluded that Defendants “have not fulfilled the essential purposes of the pertinent decrees.” Id. Further, the court found Defendants’ assertion that they long ago remedied all constitutional violations to be “somewhat misleading.” Id. at –15. The court explained that the decree obligations in the JSD, the Plan of Action, and Appendix A “all flowed from [its] original findings of [federal] violations in 1990.” Id. at . And it noted that Revised Table IV was developed in response to the 2012 findings of approximately 100 decree violations. Id. The court stated that it “correlated its specific findings of violations in 2012 with enumerated requirements in the JSD, Plan of Action, and Appendix A.” Id. “Stated differently, the October 2012 violations evolved from compliance issues concerning obligations that first appeared in the JSD, Plan of Action, and Appendix A that Defendants had not yet satisfied.” Id. The court also took issue with Defendants’ characterization of the 2012 Order as finding no ongoing violations of federal law. The court clarified that it had made no findings in its 2012 Order on continuing violations of federal law. Id. Although Plaintiffs had argued that Defendants violated the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA, the court ruled then that “there was not sufficient evidence of discrimination under” either Act. Id. But the court explained that it was not asked, and thus made no findings on, whether Defendants otherwise continued to violate class members’ constitutional rights. Id. With respect to the 2016 motion to terminate oversight, the district court likewise did not resolve the question of current compliance with federal 18 law, stating it “is not in the position to assess, and, therefore, cannot conclude that Defendants are no longer violating constitutional or federal law.” Id. at . But “[b]ecause all of [the] outstanding obligations grew out of the Court’s 1990 Order and/or the related 2012 findings of violations,” the district court concluded that “Defendants have not convinced the Court that they have satisfied the essential purposes of the JSD, Plan of Action, Appendix A, and Revised Table IV.” Id. at 16. The court then rejected Defendants’ claim that principles of federalism dictated the termination of oversight. The court acknowledged that the Supreme Court, in Horne v. Flores, 557 U.S. 433 (2009), stated that federalism concerns are heightened when a consent decree has the effect of dictating state budget allocations. Id. And it conceded that “increasing fees and costs associated with this litigation are detrimental to the State’s interest.” Id. But the court reasoned that “first and foremost,” the Horne Court asked if the State had fulfilled its obligations under federal law and achieved the objectives of the pertinent order. Id. The district court answered that question in the negative, stating: “Unlike Horne, Defendants have not shown that they have fulfilled their outstanding obligations, ‘by other means.’” Id. at  (quoting Horne, 557 U.S. at 439). Ultimately, the court concluded that Defendants “have not come close to showing that vacatur of all of the orders and decrees is suitably tailored to the proposed changed circumstances.” Id. Nor have Defendants “demonstrated that a durable remedy is in place sufficient to justify vacatur of all of the Court’s orders.” Id. at . In other words, Defendants had not shown “that it is unlikely that the 19 prohibited conditions or actions will recur.” Id. (quoting LaShawn A. ex rel. Moore v. Fenty, 701 F. Supp. 2d 84, 111 (D.D.C. 2010), aff’d sub nom. LaShawn A. ex rel. Moore v. Gray, 412 F. App’x 315 (D.C. Cir. 2011)). The court therefore denied the motion.