S.H. v. Edwards

• Decision Date: 28 November 1988
• Docket Number: No. 87-8635,87-8635
• Citation: 860 F.2d 1045
• Parties: S.H. and P.F., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Joe EDWARDS and R. Derril Gay, individually and in their official capacity, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

Page 1045

860 F.2d 1045

S.H. and P.F., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Joe EDWARDS and R. Derril Gay, individually and in their official capacity, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 87-8635.

United States Court of Appeals Eleventh Circuit.

Nov. 28, 1988.

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied Jan. 9, 1989.

Phyllis J. Holmen, Georgia Legal Services Program, Jonathan A. Zimring, Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiffs-appellants.

Jefferson James Davis, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., State of Georgia, Vivian Davidson Egan, Atlanta, Ga., for defendants-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

Before FAY and CLARK, Circuit Judges, and GONZALEZ ^*, District Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The judgment of the district court and the rulings questioned on appeal are affirmed based upon and for the reasons stated in the thoughtful Order of Court entered on April 10, 1987 and appended hereto.

The dissent criticizes our approach in this matter and consequently, we add these thoughts. The plaintiffs won the lawsuit. Extensive relief was afforded. Both the United States Magistrate and the District Judge entered substantial writings explaining the various rulings. In our opinion, nothing is gained by repeating that analysis. Where we part company is on the one issue of whether the plaintiffs have a substantive due process right, under the federal constitution, to habilitation in a community setting. The district court held in the negative and we agree. Judge Clark disagrees.

All agree that Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 102 S.Ct. 2452, 73 L.Ed.2d 28 (1982), is the guiding light but reasonable litigants, attorneys and judges disagree on its application. The plaintiffs in this case maintain that mentally retarded patients fare better in community placements as opposed to institutional environments and that certain professionals have recommended that members of the alleged class be placed in such community facilities. The defendants agree, but suggest that not enough community facilities are available and that the institutional facilities being used do not deviate from accepted professional standards.

We agree with the Circuits ¹ which interpret Youngberg as requiring states to provide habilitation in accord with prevailing standards of practice. The experts in this case agree that Georgia's decision to keep these plaintiffs in institutional settings until community facilities can be made available does not deviate from professionally accepted standards.

We join with Judge Clark in hoping that available funds will be used to secure more community type quarters. We disagree that plaintiffs have a constitutional right to such. The fact that the State of Georgia is trying to provide "better" facilities does not mean they are depriving plaintiffs of their constitutional rights by continuing to use institutions which the experts find are being operated in accord with sound professional standards.

AFFIRMED.

APPENDIX

S.H. and P.F. individually and on behalf of all others

similarly situated, Plaintiffs

vs.

Joe Edwards and R. Derril Gay, individually and in their

official capacities, Defendants

Civil Action File No. C81-877A

In the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

Atlanta Division

ORDER OF COURT

This matter is before the court on the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate ("Magistrate's Report"). The matter went before the Magistrate on cross-motions of the parties for summary judgment.

Procedural Background

Plaintiffs seek judgment upon the following issues: 1) whether defendants have violated plaintiffs' rights to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States by failing to provide to plaintiffs adjudicatory reviews of their indefinite commitments; 2) whether defendants have violated plaintiffs' rights to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment by arbitrarily providing adjudicatory reviews to some institutionalized mentally retarded adults, but not to plaintiffs; 3) whether defendants' failure to provide to plaintiffs adjudicatory reviews of plaintiffs' commitments violates state law; 4) whether defendants' failure to provide to plaintiffs community services to relieve them from their indefinite confinement violates state law; and 5) whether plaintiffs are entitled to a full and complete remedy to make them whole for the constitutional injuries they have suffered. Defendants seek summary judgment on the entire complaint.

Magistrate's Recommendation

After a hearing on the cross-motions for summary judgment, the Magistrate issued a Report and Recommendation which contains the following recommendations:

1. Plaintiffs' state law claims be dismissed;

2. Plaintiffs' be granted summary judgment on the issue of a right to a continued Rehabilitation Review Procedure (O.C.G.A. Sec. 37-4-42) on both equal protection and procedural due process grounds;

3. Defendants be granted summary judgment on the issue of a right to community habilitation, on substantive due process grounds;

4. Defendants be granted summary judgment on all claims under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. Sec. 794 et seq.).

Plaintiffs object to the third and fourth recommendations, and defendants object to the second recommendation. The court will address the second through fourth of the Magistrate's recommendations seriatim after setting forth certain material facts that will aid the disposition of these matters.

Statement of Certain Undisputed Facts

1. Plaintiffs S.H. and P.F. were residents of Gracewood State School and Hospital, a state owned and operated institution for the mentally retarded at the time this action was filed.

2. Plaintiffs represent a class consisting of all adult persons who are mentally retarded or otherwise handicapped, who have been, are now, or will be residents of state-owned or operated facilities for the mentally retarded, who since September 1, 1978, have been, are being, or will be denied access to due process hearing procedures which would determine their need for community placement and/or continued hospitalization.

3. S.H. and P.F. had been residents of Gracewood since before September 1, 1978.

4. Plaintiffs S.H. and P.F. were admitted to Gracewood without having received a commitment hearing.

5. S.H. was twenty-four years old when this action was filed. She had been a resident of state hospitals for approximately fifteen years at the inception of this action.

6. P.F. was thirty-five when this action was filed and had been a resident of state hospitals for twenty-five years.

7. Both S.H. and P.F. reached the age of 18 prior to September 1, 1978.

8. On September 1, 1978 defendants initiated procedures to review the continued institutionalization of adult residents of its mental retardation facilities as required by amendments to the Georgia statute governing the institutionalization of retarded persons.

9. Persons who received such reviews had their need for continued institutionalization reconsidered after the first six months of their commitment and thereafter on an annual basis.

10. Persons who received such reviews, if continued commitment was deemed necessary after the initial commitment period of six months, had their cases reviewed by a panel of impartial professionals not involved in the residents' active treatment (the panels are known as Committees for Continued Habilitation Review).

11. Until April 1, 1979, following the reviews by the Committees for Continued Habilitation Review, residents received a hearing before a Department of Human Resources hearing examiner to determine their need for continued commitment.

12. At the hearing the persons receiving the reviews have a right to counsel, a right to subpoena and cross-examine witnesses, a right to present evidence including independent evaluations of the continuing need for commitment, a right to have an alternative plan to receive services in a lesser restrictive environment presented to the hearing officer by the Department of Human Resources and the right to have findings of fact made by an impartial hearing officer.

13. After April 1, 1979, as a result of statutory amendments governing the provision of such reviews, following the reviews by the Committees for Continued Habilitation Review, all persons reviewed had their service plans reviewed by a hearing officer of the Department of Human Resources. A hearing was then held if the hearing officer chose to initiate one or if the resident or a representative requested that one be held.

14. Neither S.H., nor P.F., ever had a review of their continued commitment by a Continued Habilitation Review Committee prior to the commencement of this action. As a result neither S.H. nor P.F. received the "automatic" hearing before a Department of Human Resources hearing examiner during the period prior to April 1, 1979, nor thereafter, the opportunity to have their case reviewed by a hearing examiner, the opportunity to request that a hearing examiner hold a hearing, or notice of any right to make such a request.

15. As a result, neither S.H. nor P.F., was provided the opportunity to exercise the right to appointed counsel, or the right to have an alternative plan to receive services in a lesser restrictive environment developed by the Department of Human Resources or to exercise any of the other rights ancillary to a continued habilitation review hearing.

16. As of September 1, 1981, more than 1,000 mentally retarded institutionalized adults were not being afforded a review of their continued commitment by a Continued Habilitation Review Committee, nor the opportunity for further review received by the balance of mentally retarded institutionalized adults.

17. Such reviews had been provided to the balance of mentally retarded residents of Defendants' institutions since September 1, 1978.

18. Since September 1, 1978, it has been the practice of...