ILNews

Court: Suit doesn't belong in federal court

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In a ruling that could impact pending litigation involving Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals decided the agency doesn't have standing to bring suits in federal court.

Just last week, U.S. District Judge David F. Hamilton of the Southern District of Indiana held in a separate suit brought by IPAS against the Indiana Department of Correction that IPAS could sue in federal court because it's independent of the governor and is funded by the federal government under the Protection and Advocacy of Mentally Ill Individuals Act (PAIMI).

But in Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services v. Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, et al., No. 089-3183, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals decided today IPAS would have to file its suit in state court. IPAS sued FSSA, LaRue Carter Memorial Hospital, and several state officials in order to gain records on a mentally disabled adult patient who died while at LaRue Carter to find out if she was a victim of abuse. The District Court held the defendants had to hand over the records because the victim was an adult and her parents weren't appointed her legal guardians. FSSA argued releasing the records would violate the victim's parents' privacy.

Instead of ruling on the issue of whether the records should have been released, the Circuit judges examined whether IPAS even had standing to sue in federal court. The federal statutes that created systems like IPAS to investigate abuse and neglect of people with mental illness don't give them an express right of action, wrote Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook. Also, Indiana hasn't enacted legislation or promulgated regulations giving IPAS the powers listed in 42 U.S.C Sections 10805 and 10806.

IPAS also can't pursue a federal suit under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, because it's a state actor and not a person for purposes of the statute.

"Indiana might have established its 'system' as a private entity, the way legal services corporations are organized," wrote the chief judge. "But because Advocacy Services is a public agency rather than a private corporation or foundation, it cannot use Section1983 and must sue in state rather than federal court."

The federal appellate court also ruled the 11th Amendment bars the suit in federal court. Chief Judge Easterbrook likened the instant case to Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank, 527 U.S. 627 (1999), in which the U.S. Supreme Court held the 11th Amendment blocks enforcement of patent claims against states and their agencies.

"We do not see any reason why patent holders should be turned away on grounds of sovereign immunity while other demands concerning information in state hands would be unaffected by that doctrine," he wrote.

The 7th Circuit vacated the District Court's judgment and remanded with instructions to dismiss for want of jurisdiction. It also noted some future decisions will need to tackle the problems that arise when a "system" established as a private organization sues in federal court to obtain information from a private medical provider or when it sues its home state in state court.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

  2. wow is this a bunch of bs! i know the facts!

  3. MCBA .... time for a new release about your entire membership (or is it just the alter ego) being "saddened and disappointed" in the failure to lynch a police officer protecting himself in the line of duty. But this time against Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation: "WASHINGTON — Justice Department lawyers will recommend that no civil rights charges be brought against the police officer who fatally shot an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Mo., after an F.B.I. investigation found no evidence to support charges, law enforcement officials said Wednesday." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/us/justice-department-ferguson-civil-rights-darren-wilson.html?ref=us&_r=0

  4. Dr wail asfour lives 3 hours from the hospital,where if he gets an emergency at least he needs three hours,while even if he is on call he should be in a location where it gives him max 10 minutes to be beside the patient,they get paid double on their on call days ,where look how they handle it,so if the death of the patient occurs on weekend and these doctors still repeat same pattern such issue should be raised,they should be closer to the patient.on other hand if all the death occured on the absence of the Dr and the nurses handle it,the nurses should get trained how to function appearntly they not that good,if the Dr lives 3 hours far from the hospital on his call days he should sleep in the hospital

  5. It's a capital offense...one for you Latin scholars..

ADVERTISEMENT