Armstead v. Pingree

• Citation: 629 F. Supp. 273
• Decision Date: 29 January 1986
• Docket Number: No. 84-96-Civ-J-12.,84-96-Civ-J-12.
• Parties: Charity ARMSTEAD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. David PINGREE, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida

629 F. Supp. 273

Charity ARMSTEAD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. David PINGREE, et al., Defendants.

No. 84-96-Civ-J-12.

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Jacksonville Division.

January 29, 1986.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Marilyn G. Rose, Jax. Area Legal Aid, Inc., Jacksonville, Fla., Susan C. Jamieson, Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiffs.

David Gauldin, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Dept. of Health & Rehabilitative Services, Tallahassee, Fla., for defendants.

ORDER

MELTON, District Judge.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs filed this class action on behalf of themselves and other mentally retarded residents of Northeast Florida State Hospital ("NEFSH"). NEFSH is a state-owned and operated institution for the mentally ill. Defendants are the Secretary of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services ("HRS") and other officials of the Mental Health and Developmental Services Division of HRS. Defendants are being sued in their official, not individual, capacities.

Count I of the First Amended and Supplemental Complaint ("First Amended Complaint") is brought by those plaintiffs who are solely mentally retarded and who have been found eligible for developmental services under chapter 393 of the Florida statutes.¹ Count I charges that conditions at NEFSH violate plaintiffs' rights under the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and 29 U.S.C. § 794 (§ 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973). Count II alleges the same violations of the rights of those plaintiffs who are both mentally retarded and mentally ill (the "dually diagnosed").

Count III sets forth the claims of two individuals who were permitted to intervene in this action. See Court Order of Dec. 18, 1984. The first amended complaint alleges that the intervenors are mentally retarded but have been declared ineligible for services under chapter 393 because their retardation commenced after age eighteen.² First Amended Complaint at ¶¶ 53-55. The intervenors contend that defendants' actions have violated their rights under the due process clause, § 1983, and § 504.

Count IV alleges that plaintiffs are de facto involuntary patients and are entitled to and have been denied periodic post-commitment review. Plaintiffs further seek independent legal assistance to assure that those procedural protections are provided. The claims in Count IV are based on the equal protection clause and § 1983.

Count V is brought on behalf of those who are legal incompetents without guardians. The complaint alleges that defendants refuse to allow such persons to authorize the release of their records to attorneys. This policy is alleged to deny plaintiffs access to courts in violation of § 1983 and the due process clause.

The following motions are pending before the Court: (1) defendants' Motion to Dismiss; (2) plaintiffs' Motion to Amend the Class; and (3) plaintiffs' Objections to the Magistrate's Order of April 8, 1985.

I. MOTION TO DISMISS

Defendants contend that this Court lacks jurisdiction because the amended complaint fails to present a federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Defendants argue that there is no federal constitutional right to treatment and services for the mentally retarded and that plaintiffs cannot rely on state law to create such rights.

As a general matter, the State has no constitutional duty to provide substantive services to its residents. Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 317, 102 S.Ct. 2452, 2458-59, 73 L.Ed.2d 28 (1982); Maher v. Roe, 432 U.S. 464, 469, 97 S.Ct. 2376, 2380, 53 L.Ed.2d 284 (1977). When, however, persons are committed to state institutions, such as plaintiffs have been, then the state assumes the duty to provide certain services and care. Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 317, 102 S.Ct. at 2458-59. The Supreme Court in Youngberg held that mentally retarded persons committed to state institutions have liberty interests under the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. Those liberty interests include safety, freedom from bodily restraint, and "minimally adequate or reasonable training to ensure safety and freedom from undue restraint." Id. at 319, 102 S.Ct. at 2459-60. The right to training includes such training as is necessary to prevent deterioration of basic self-care skills. Society for Goodwill to Retarded Children, Inc. v. Cuomo, 737 F.2d 1239, 1250 (2d Cir.1984).

Plaintiffs do not contend that the State has a constitutional duty to provide services and treatment to every mentally retarded person within its borders. The issue is not whether the State must provide such services. Rather, the issue is whether the State, once it has assumed the duty to provide care to the mentally retarded committed to state institutions, has carried out its duties in a constitutional manner. Plaintiffs allege that they have been committed to a state institution, that they have been subjected to physical restraints, that they have suffered physical harm from other patients, and that they have suffered a deterioration of skills as a result of their confinement. See First Amended Complaint ¶¶ 42-44, 50-51, 57. These allegations are sufficient under Youngberg to state a claim for relief under the due process clause and § 1983. See Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 324, 102 S.Ct. at 2462.

Defendants also contend that plaintiffs fail to state a claim for relief when they assert a right to training in order to be placed in less restrictive settings. Relying on Society for Goodwill to Retarded Children, Inc., defendants assert that plaintiffs have no right to be housed in the least restrictive environment. The Court agrees that there is no constitutional requirement to place mentally retarded persons in the least restrictive environment. Id. at 1249; Rennie v. Klein, 720 F.2d 266, 269 (3d Cir.1983) (en banc); Johnson v. Brelje, 701 F.2d 1201, 1210 (7th Cir.1983). However, plaintiffs do have a due process right to training sufficient to prevent basic self-care skills from deteriorating. Society for Goodwill to Retarded Children, Inc., 737 F.2d at 1250. The training to which plaintiffs are constitutionally entitled is that which is reasonable in light of plaintiffs' liberty interests balanced against the relevant state interests. Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. at 321-22, 102 S.Ct. at 2461. In determining what is reasonable training, the Court must give deference to the judgment of qualified professionals. Id. at 322, 102 S.Ct. at 2461.

Plaintiffs do not allege a constitutional right to training to enable them to function in the least restrictive environment. They do allege that due to lack of appropriate training, their skills have deteriorated. This allegation is sufficient to state a claim under Society for Goodwill to Retarded Children, Inc. Whether defendants' treatment and services actually fall short of the relevant professional standards is a factual inquiry that cannot be decided on a motion to dismiss.

Defendants next argue that § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act "does not, in and of itself, grant jurisdiction upon this Court for relief to Plaintiffs." Motion to Dismiss Memorandum at 2. It is not entirely clear what defendants mean by this statement.³ If defendants are contending that this Court lacks jurisdiction because plaintiffs do not have a private right of action to enforce § 504, that contention is without merit. See, e.g., Arline v. School Board of Nassau County, 772 F.2d 759, 760 n. 1 (11th Cir.1985). If defendants are arguing that plaintiffs should first exhaust any administrative remedies available pursuant to § 504, that argument is likewise meritless. New Mexico Ass'n for Retarded Citizens v. New Mexico, 678 F.2d 847, 850 (10th Cir.1982) (and cases cited therein). Plaintiffs have alleged and it is clear that this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to adjudicate the § 504 claim arising under the federal statutes.

Defendants' argument that Count IV fails to allege a federal question is also without merit. Count IV clearly alleges that defendants' actions have unconstitutionally restricted plaintiffs' access to courts, in violation of the fourteenth amendment and § 1983. Rights of access to the courts is a constitutional right guaranteed by the due process clause which assures that no person will be denied the opportunity to present his or her claim to the judiciary regarding constitutional violations. Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483, 89 S.Ct. 747, 21 L.Ed.2d 718 (1969); Ward v. Kort, 762 F.2d 856, 858 (10th Cir.1985) ("A person under mental commitment is entitled to protection of his right to access to the courts.")

Defendants move to dismiss Count V which challenges defendants' practice of refusing to release the medical records of those plaintiffs who are legally incompetent and without guardians. Defendants' position is that access to these confidential records is a matter governed by state law. See Fla.Stat. §§ 393.13(3)(m)(2), 394.459(9) (Supp.1985).⁴ Moreover, defendants contend that counsel for plaintiffs must litigate in state court each case for which release is sought.

Although defendants cite no legal authority for their position, it appears that they may implicitly rely on the principles expressed in Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984). ("Pennhurst II"). If so, such reliance is misplaced.

In Pennhurst II, the Supreme Court held that the eleventh amendment bars a federal suit against state officials on the basis of state law. Id., 104 S.Ct. at 917. Justice Powell, writing for the majority, noted that under Ex Parte Young, prospective injunctive relief may be granted against state officials whose conduct violated federal law. Id. at 909. In those instances, state sovereign immunity concerns must yield to the need to promote the supremacy of federal law. There is no need to protect federal interests, however, when a plaintiff alleges that a state official violated state law. Such matters must be resolved by state courts. See...