ILNews

Mentally ill prisoners suit dismissal denied

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A federal judge has denied the Indiana Department of Correction's motion to dismiss a suit brought last year that challenges the DOC's practices and programs regarding mentally ill patients.

U.S. District Judge David F. Hamilton denied the DOC's motion July 21 in Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services v. Commissioner, Indiana Department of Correction, No. 1:08-CV-1317, which was filed in the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, in October 2008.

The suit brought by the Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services and filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana alleges violations of the Eighth Amendment, the American with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act. IPAS claims that prisoners at the Indiana State Prison in Michigan City have infrequent contact with mental health professionals; prisoners at the New Castle Correctional Facility are held in cells with solid doors that require them to yell discussions with mental health professionals; and that mentally ill prisoners at the Wabash Valley Correctional Facility are often violently removed from their cells.

The suit requests a preliminary injunction that can eventually be made permanent and all plaintiff costs and attorney fees.

The DOC moved to dismiss the suit under Rule 12(b)(1), arguing IPAS lacks standing to sue on behalf of unidentified individuals and the District Court lacks jurisdiction over an alleged "intramural" dispute between state agencies.

"In fact, this case presents the unusual drama of a state challenging the constitutionality of federal statutes under which the state receives federal funds," wrote Judge Hamilton. "IDOC is challenging whether the federal statutory grant of standing to IPAS - a key condition of federal funding in Indiana - violates Article III of the United States Constitution."

The judge ruled it didn't because IPAS satisfied the constitutional criteria under the Hunt test. The agency also isn't required to identify any specific individuals whose rights actually have been violated. The DOC didn't show in any provision in the Protection and Advocacy of Mentally Ill Individuals Act (PAIMI) or the Indiana statutes creating IPAS that could reasonably be read to require it name specific individuals in bringing a suit to redress violations of the rights of individuals with mental illness.

Judge Hamilton also rejected the DOC's argument that the case must be dismissed because it's an "intramural" dispute between two state agencies. IPAS isn't a traditional state agency; it's independent of the governor and is funded by the federal government under PAIMI.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT