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

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. 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."

ADVERTISEMENT