Advocacy Ctr. For the Elderly v. La. Dep't of Health, Civil Action No. 10-1088
| Citation | 731 F.Supp.2d 583 |
| Decision Date | 09 August 2010 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 10-1088 |
| Parties | ADVOCACY CENTER FOR the ELDERLY AND DISABLED, et al. v. LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HOSPITALS, et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana |
Marjorie Press Lindblom, Adam T. Humann, Emily C. Lee, Maura Martin Klugman, Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, New York, NY, Barry James Gerharz, Katharine Murphy Schwartzmann, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, New Orleans, LA, Ellen Bentley Hahn, Lafayette, LA, for Advocacy Center for the Elderly and Disabled, et al.
Neal Risley Elliott, Jr., Attorney at Law, Adrienne T. Bordelon, Douglas L. Cade, Stephen Robert Russo, Louisiana Department of Health & Hospitals, Bureau of Legal Services, Baton Rouge, LA, for Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals, et al.
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is defendants' Motion to Dismiss (R. Doc. 20). For the following reasons, the motion is DENIED.
Plaintiffs in this matter are W.B., who brings this suit through his mother and next friend, Charrie Butler, and also the Advocacy Center for the Elderly and Disabled. The Advocacy Center is part of a network of organizations established under federal law to advocate on behalf of people with disabilities. The federal laws under which the Advocacy Center was established include the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act of 1986 ("PAIMI").1
Defendants are the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals, as well as three state officials who are sued in their official capacities. These officials include Alan Levine, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Hospitals; Mark Anders, the Chief Executive Officer of the Eastern Louisiana Mental Health System, which is a component of the Department of Health and Hospitals; and Michelle Duncan, the Director of the Forensic Services Division of the Eastern Louisiana Mental Health System.
Plaintiffs allege that Louisiana law requires criminal defendants in Louisiana courts who are found incompetent to stand trial to be transferred to the Feliciana Forensic Facility ("Feliciana") if they require inpatient restorative treatment. Plaintiffs further contend that Feliciana is the only inpatient facility where these detainees can receive adequate mental-health treatment. But Feliciana is full. It can accept no more patients, and under Louisiana law it must reject any new patients once it has reached full capacity. The consequence of this, plaintiffs claim, is that incompetent detainees awaiting a vacancy at Feliciana simply languish in parish jails for extended periods of time without having been convicted of any crime.2 Plaintiffs claim that, as of October of 2009, 104Incompetent Detainees had been held for an extended period of time despite having been found incompetent to stand trial and committed, but not yet transferred, to Feliciana. Nearly half had waited over 180 days, they claim, and nearly 20 had been waiting more than a year. Some had been waiting for more than two years. Plaintiffs additionally claim that, as of January 8, 2010, 28 Detainees were awaiting transfer from Orleans Parish Prison. They assert that the average wait time for these Detainees was 161 days, and that some had been waiting for more than 250 days, while others more than 440.
Plaintiffs brought this suit in April of 2010 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Defendants now move to dismiss this suit. The Court rules as follows.
Defendants seek dismissal of this action on several grounds. First, they contend that this suit is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Second, they argue that neither plaintiff may maintain this suit. Third, they argue that plaintiffs' complaint is insufficient. Finally, they assert that venue is not proper in the Eastern District of Louisiana.
Defendants assert that this case must be dismissed under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 12(b)(1) requires dismissal of an action if the court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of the plaintiff's claim. Motions submitted under that rule allow a party to challenge the court's subject-matter jurisdiction based upon the allegations on the face of the complaint.3 In ruling on a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss, the court may rely on (1) the complaint alone, presuming the allegations to be true, (2) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts, or (3) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts and by the court's resolution of disputed facts.4 The plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that subject-matter jurisdiction exists.5 When examining a factual challenge to subject-matter jurisdiction that does not implicate the merits of plaintiff's cause of action, the district court has substantial authority "to weigh the evidence and satisfy itself as to the existence of its power to hear the case." 6 Accordingly, the Court may consider matters outside the pleadings, such as testimony and affidavits.7 A court's dismissal of a case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is not a decision on the merits, and the dismissal does not necessarily prevent the plaintiff from pursuing the claim in another forum.8
To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the plaintiff must plead enough facts "to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." 9 A claim is faciallyplausible when the plaintiff pleads facts that allow the court to "draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." 10 A court must accept all well-pleaded facts as true and must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.11 But the Court is not bound to accept as true legal conclusions couched as factual allegations.12
A legally sufficient complaint must establish more than a "sheer possibility" that plaintiff's claim is true.13 It need not contain detailed factual allegations, but it must go beyond labels, legal conclusions, or formulaic recitations of the elements of a cause of action.14 In other words, the face of the complaint must contain enough factual matter to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of each element of the plaintiff's claim.15 If there are insufficient factual allegations to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, or if it is apparent from the face of the complaint that there is an insuperable bar to relief, the claim must be dismissed.16
The Court addresses defendants' subject-matter-jurisdiction challenges first.17 Defendants first assert that the doctrine of sovereign immunity bars all claims asserted against the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals and all claims asserted against Department employees acting in their official capacities.18
Sovereign immunity prevents citizens from bringing suit in federal court against states of the United States that have not consented to the suit.19 This rule applies to state agencies such as the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals.20 In addition, lawsuits against state officials in their official capacities are typicallysuits against the state itself and cannot be brought absent a sovereign-immunity exception.21
Plaintiffs, in response, voluntarily dismiss the Department of Health and Hospitals as a defendant.22 They then suggest that this suit does fall into an exception to sovereign immunity, specifically the exception that was articulated by the Supreme Court in Ex Parte Young. 23 This exception holds that a suit is not barred by sovereign immunity when it is brought against state officials to enjoin the enforcement of an allegedly unconstitutional law.24 This exception may be maintained because the enforcement of an unconstitutional law cannot be an official act on behalf of the state, "because the state cannot confer authority on its officers to violate the Constitution or federal law." 25 Accordingly, "[o]nly for the purposes of the Eleventh Amendment are official-capacity actions for prospective relief not treated as actions against the state." 26 The exception applies only to suits that seek prospective relief that is rooted in federal authority; it does not apply to actions that seek monetary relief for past harms or that pursue injunctive relief on the basis of state law.27 A court need not fully examine the merits of a plaintiff's claim before it determines that the Ex Parte Young exception applies. Instead, "a court need only conduct a straightforward inquiry into whether the complaint alleges an ongoing violation of federal law and seeks relief properly characterized as prospective." 28 Typically, Ex Parte Young is adequately invoked when a plaintiff alleges an ongoing violation of federal law.29
In their motion to dismiss, defendants assert generally that Ex Parte Young does not apply to this case. They do not specifically articulate why this is correct.30 The Court finds that there is little question that this case falls into the Ex Parte Young exception. First, plaintiffs allege an ongoing violation of federal constitutional law-specifically, the FourteenthAmendment. They plead very clearly that they seek to vindicate the Fourteenth Amendment rights of the Incompetent Detainees who are awaiting transfer to Feliciana.31 Furthermore, the relief they seek is accurately characterized as prospective: they seek a declaration that the relevant laws are unconstitutional both facially and as applied, and they seek preliminary and permanent injunctive relief requiring defendants to accept custody of the Incompetent Detainees and provide them with proper restorative treatment.32 This is a sufficient showing under the Supreme Court's case law to invoke the Ex Parte Young doctrine. The Seventh Circuit has recently reached a similar conclusion, finding that the Ex Parte Young exception covered an injunctive suit filed by a PAIMI organization to gain access to the records of mentally ill patients in state hospitals.33 Defendants...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Disability Rights Pa. v. Pa. Dep't of Human Servs.
...(D. Del. Mar. 16, 2016); Wilson v. Thomas, 43 F. Supp. 3d 628, 632 (E.D.N.C. 2014); Advocacy Ctr. for Elderly & Disabled v. La. Dep't of Health & Hosps., 731 F. Supp. 2d 583, 591-96 (E.D. La. 2010); Ind. Prot. & Advocacy Servs. Comm'n v. Comm'r, Indiana Dep't of Correction, 642 F. Supp. 2d ......
-
Se. La. Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v. Louisiana ex rel. Jindal
...494; 129 S. Ct. 1142, 1149, 173 L. Ed. 2d 1 (2009); Advocacy Ctr. for Elderly & Disabled v. Louisiana Dep't of Health & Hospitals, 731 F. Supp. 2d 583 (E.D. La. 2010). The Supreme Court has recognized certain criteria in determining whether an organization may assert standing on behalf of i......
- KAI Enterprises, L.L.C. v. Boh Bros. Const. Co., L.L.C.
-
Advocacy Ctr. v. La. Tech Univ. & President Leslie Guice
...have official members, as long as the beneficiaries of the suit have 'indicia of membership' in the organization." Advocacy Ctr. for Elderly & Disabled, 731 F. Supp.2d at 593 (citing Hunt, 432 U.S. at 344, 97 S.Ct. 2434). The Advocacy Center alleged that itis the designated Protection and A......