Wyatt v. Stickney

• Citation: 344 F. Supp. 387
• Decision Date: 02 June 1972
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 3195-N.
• Parties: Ricky WYATT, by and through his aunt and legal guardian, Mrs. W. C. Rawlins, Jr., et al., for themselves jointly and severally and for all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Dr. Stonewall B. STICKNEY, as Commissioner of Mental Health and the State of Alabama Mental Health Officer, et al., Defendants, United States of America et al., Amici Curiae.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama

344 F. Supp. 387

Ricky WYATT, by and through his aunt and legal guardian, Mrs. W. C. Rawlins, Jr., et al., for themselves jointly and severally and for all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Dr. Stonewall B. STICKNEY, as Commissioner of Mental Health and the State of Alabama Mental Health Officer, et al., Defendants United States of America et al., Amici Curiae.

Civ. A. No. 3195-N.

United States District Court, M. D. Alabama, N. D.

April 13, 1972.

Attorneys' Fees Taxed June 2, 1972.

George W. Dean, Jr., Destin, Fla., Jack Drake (Drake, Knowles & Still), Tuscaloosa, Ala., Reber F. Boult, Jr., Atlanta, Ga., Morton Birnbaum, Brooklyn, N. Y., for plaintiffs.

William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen. of Alabama, J. Jerry Wood, Asst. Atty. Gen. of Alabama, Montgomery, Ala., John J. Coleman, Special Asst. Atty. Gen. of Alabama, Birmingham, Ala., for defendants.

Ira DeMent, U. S. Atty., Middle District of Alabama, Montgomery, Ala., Robert H. Johnson and David J. W. Vanderhoof, Civil Rights Division, U. S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., Cleveland Thornton, Special Asst. U. S. Atty., Middle District of Alabama, Montgomery, Ala., for United States amici curiae.

Charles R. Halpern (Center for Law & Social Policy), James F. Fitzpatrick, Stephen M. Sacks, and Jeffrey D. Bauman (Arnold & Porter), Washington, D. C., Bruce Ennis (American Civil Liberties Union), New York City, Stanley Herr (NLADA National Law Office), Washington, D. C., Shelley Mercer (National Health and Environmental Program, School of Law, UCLA), Los Angeles, Cal., Paul Friedman (Center for Law and Social Policy), Washington, D. C., for other amici curiae.

ORDER AND DECREE

JOHNSON, Chief Judge.

This litigation originally pertained only to Alabama's mentally ill,¹ but by motion to amend granted August 12, 1971, plaintiffs have expanded their class to include residents of Partlow State School and Hospital, a public institution located in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, designed to habilitate the mentally retarded.² In their amended complaint, plaintiffs have alleged that Partlow is being operated in a constitutionally impermissible fashion and that, as a result, its residents are denied the right to adequate habilitation. Relying on these allegations, plaintiffs have asked that the Court promulgate and order the implementation at Partlow of minimum medical and constitutional standards appropriate for the functioning of such an institution. Plaintiffs have asked also that the Court appoint a master and a professional advisory committee to oversee the implementation of judicially ordered guidelines and appoint a human rights committee to safeguard the personal rights and dignity of the residents. Finally plaintiffs have requested the Court to grant various forms of relief intended to ameliorate the financial difficulties certain to arise in connection with the upgrading of Alabama's public mental health institutions.³

On February 28-29, 1972, the Court conducted a hearing on the issues formulated by the pleadings in this case. Evidence was taken on the adequacy of conditions currently existing at Partlow as well as on the standards requisite for a constitutionally acceptable minimum habilitation program. The parties and amici⁴ stipulated to a broad array of these standards and proposed additional ones for the Court's evaluation. The case now is submitted upon the pleadings, the evidence, the stipulations, and the proposed standards and briefs of the parties.

Initially, this Court has considered plaintiffs' position, not actively contested by defendants, that people involuntarily committed⁵ through non-criminal procedures to institutions for the mentally retarded have a constitutional right to receive such individual habilitation as will give each of them a realistic opportunity to lead a more useful and meaningful life and to return to society. That this position is in accord with the applicable legal principles is clear beyond cavil. In an analogous situation involving the mentally ill at Bryce Hospital, this Court said:

"Adequate and effective treatment is constitutionally required because, absent treatment, the hospital is transformed `into a penitentiary where one could be held indefinitely for no convicted offense.' Ragsdale v. Overholser, 108 U.S.App.D.C. 308 281 F.2d 943, 950 (1960). The purpose of involuntary hospitalization for treatment purposes is treatment and not mere custodial care or punishment. This is the only justification, from a constitutional standpoint, that allows civil commitments to mental institutions such as Bryce." Wyatt v. Stickney, 325 F.Supp. at 784.

In the context of the right to appropriate care for people civilly confined to public mental institutions, no viable distinction can be made between the mentally ill and the mentally retarded. Because the only constitutional justification for civilly committing a mental retardate, therefore, is habilitation, it follows ineluctably that once committed such a person is possessed of an inviolable constitutional right to habilitation.⁶

Having recognized the existence of this right, the Court now must determine whether prevailing conditions at Partlow conform to minimum standards constitutionally required for a mental retardation institution. The Court's conclusion, compelled by the evidence, is unmistakably clear. Put simply, conditions at Partlow are grossly substandard. Testimony presented by plaintiffs and amici has depicted hazardous and deplorable inadequacies in the institution's operation.⁷ Commendably, defendants have offered no rebuttal.⁸ At the close of the testimony, the Court, having been impressed by the urgency of the situation, issued an interim emergency order "to protect the lives and well-being of the residents of Partlow." In that order, the Court found that:

"The evidence . . . has vividly and undisputedly portrayed Partlow State School and Hospital as a warehousing institution which, because of its atmosphere of psychological and physical deprivation, is wholly incapable of furnishing habilitation to the mentally retarded and is conducive only to the deterioration and the debilitation of the residents. The evidence has reflected further that safety and sanitary conditions at Partlow are substandard to the point of endangering the health and lives of those residing there, that the wards are grossly understaffed, rendering even simple custodial care impossible, and that overcrowding remains a dangerous problem often leading to serious accidents, some of which have resulted in deaths of residents." Wyatt v. Stickney, March 2, 1972. (Unreported Interim Emergency Order.)

Based upon these findings, the Court has concluded that plaintiffs have been denied their right to habilitation and that, pursuant to plaintiffs' request, minimum standards for constitutional care and training must be effectuated at Partlow. Consequently, having determined from a careful study of the evidence that the standards set out in Appendix A to this decree are medical and constitutional minimums, this Court will order their implementation.⁹ In so ordering, the Court emphasizes that these standards are, indeed, minimums only peripherally approaching the ideal to which defendants should aspire. It is hoped that the revelations of this case will furnish impetus to defendants to provide physical facilities and habilitation programs at Partlow substantially exceeding medical and constitutional minimums.

For the present, however, defendants must realize that the prompt institution of minimum standards to ensure the provision of essential care and training for Alabama's mental retardates is mandatory and that no default can be justified by a want of operating funds. In this regard, the principles applicable to the mentally ill apply with equal force to the mentally retarded. See Wyatt v. Stickney, 325 F.Supp. at 784-785.

In addition to requesting that minimum standards be implemented, plaintiffs have asked that defendants be directed to establish a standing human rights committee to guarantee that residents are afforded constitutional and humane habilitation. The evidence reflects that such a committee is needed at Partlow, and this Court will order its initiation. This committee shall have review of all research proposals and all habilitation programs to ensure that the dignity and human rights of residents are preserved. The committee also shall advise and assist residents who allege that their legal rights have been infringed or that the Mental Health Board has failed to comply with judicially ordered guidelines. At reasonable times the committee may inspect the records of the institution and interview residents and staff. At its discretion the committee may consult appropriate, independent specialists who shall be compensated by the defendant Board.¹⁰ The Court will appoint seven members to comprise Partlow's human rights committee, the names and addresses of whom are set forth in Appendix B to this decree. Those who serve on the committee shall be paid on a per diem basis and be reimbursed for travel expenses at the same rate as members of the Alabama Board of Mental Health.

Plaintiffs, as well as amici, also have advocated the appointment of a federal master and a professional advisory committee to oversee the implementation of minimum constitutional standards. These parties maintain that conditions at Partlow largely are the product of shameful neglect by the state officials charged with responsibility for that institution. Consequently, plaintiffs and amici insist, these state officials have proved themselves incapable of instituting a constitutional habilitation program. Although this Court acknowledges the intolerable conditions at Partlow and recognizes defendants' past nonfeasances, it, nevertheless, reserves ruling on the appointment of a master and a professional advisory committee.¹¹ Federal courts are reluctant to assume control of any organization, but especially one...