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. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT