ILNews

En banc 7th Circuit says IPAS can sue

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Rehearing

"Agency sues DOC over mentally ill prisoners" - IL Aug. 5-18, 2009

Issuing a decision en banc April 22, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals decided that independent state organization Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services has the right to sue a state government agency about the practices and programs regarding mentally ill inmates.

U.S. Judge David F. Hamilton wrote a 63-page opinion for the full court, which included eight other majority members and one dissenter. The court declined to dismiss the action, reversing a decision last year by a prior three-judge appellate panel on the case of IPAS v. Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, et al., No. 08-3183. The holding affirms a decision by U.S. Judge Larry McKinney, removing the state of Indiana and the FSSA as defendants but keeping alive the claims against the named state officials. Specifically, the court held the 11th Amendment does not bar plaintiff IPAC from seeking injunctive and declaratory relief against the state officials because the federal Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act of 1986 provides that cause of action, and that plaintiff is entitled to access peer review records of treatment covered mentally ill patients.

Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook, a member of the original panel reversing Judge McKinney, dissented and said he would have dismissed the suit and let the administrative process take its course.

If this ruling stands and isn't appealed to the nation's highest court, it would likely impact the case of IPAC v. Indiana Department of Correction, No. 1:08-CV-11317, which Judge Hamilton had decided on July 21, 2009, before he was confirmed for the appellate bench. That case is ongoing and now before Chief Judge Richard L. Young. A motion for class certification is pending and the federal court docket shows a five-day bench trial is set for July 25, 2011.

-Michael W. Hoskins

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  2. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

  3. No, Ron Drake is not running against incumbent Larry Bucshon. That’s totally wrong; and destructively misleading to say anything like that. All political candidates, including me in the 8th district, are facing voters, not incumbents. You should not firewall away any of voters’ options. We need them all now more than ever. Right? Y’all have for decades given the Ds and Rs free 24/7/365 coverage of taxpayer-supported promotion at the expense of all alternatives. That’s plenty of head-start, money-in-the-pocket advantage for parties and people that don’t need any more free immunities, powers, privileges and money denied all others. Now it’s time to play fair and let voters know that there are, in fact, options. Much, much better, and not-corrupt options. Liberty or Bust! Andy Horning Libertarian for IN08 USA House of Representatives Freedom, Indiana

  4. A great idea! There is absolutely no need to incarcerate HRC's so-called "super predators" now that they can be adequately supervised on the streets by the BLM czars.

  5. One of the only qualms I have with this article is in the first paragraph, that heroin use is especially dangerous because it is highly addictive. All opioids are highly addictive. It is why, after becoming addicted to pain medications prescribed by their doctors for various reasons, people resort to heroin. There is a much deeper issue at play, and no drug use should be taken lightly in this category.

ADVERTISEMENT