Disability Law Ctr. v. State, Case No. 2:15-cv-00645-RJS
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Utah |
| Writing for the Court | ROBERT J. SHELBY, United States District Judge |
| Citation | 180 F.Supp.3d 998 |
| Parties | Disability Law Center, a Utah nonprofit corporation; S.B., an individual, by and through his next friend Margaret Goodman ; A.U., by and through his next friend Mary Eka; and S.W., an individual, Plaintiffs, v. State of Utah; Utah Department of Human Services ; Ann Williamson, in her official capacity as Executive Director of the Utah Department of Human Services ; Utah Division of Substance Abuse and Mental Health; Douglas Thomas, in his official capacity as Director of the Utah Division of Substance Abuse and Mental Health; Utah State Hospital; Dallas Earnshaw, in his official capacity as Superintendent of Utah State Hospital, Defendants. |
| Decision Date | 07 April 2016 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 2:15-cv-00645-RJS |
180 F.Supp.3d 998
Disability Law Center, a Utah nonprofit corporation; S.B., an individual, by and through his next friend Margaret Goodman ; A.U., by and through his next friend Mary Eka; and S.W., an individual, Plaintiffs,
v.
State of Utah; Utah Department of Human Services ; Ann Williamson, in her official capacity as Executive Director of the Utah Department of Human Services ; Utah Division of Substance Abuse and Mental Health; Douglas Thomas, in his official capacity as Director of the Utah Division of Substance Abuse and Mental Health; Utah State Hospital; Dallas Earnshaw, in his official capacity as Superintendent of Utah State Hospital, Defendants.
Case No. 2:15-cv-00645-RJS
United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division.
Signed April 7, 2016
Alan L. Sullivan, Bret R. Evans, Jared C. Fields, Snell & Wilmer, Erin Burns Sullivan, Aaron M. Kinikini, Salt Lake City, UT, for Plaintiffs.
Laura K. Thompson, Tyler R. Green, Office of the Attorney General, David N. Wolf, Parker Douglas, Salt Lake City, UT, for Defendants.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
ROBERT J. SHELBY, United States District Judge
This case is about the substantive due process rights of pretrial detainees who have been declared incompetent to stand trial. The State of Utah holds these pretrial detainees—who have been declared incompetent but have not been adjudicated guilty of a crime—in jail for extended periods while they wait to receive court-ordered competency restoration treatment. The question presented is whether the State is depriving these incompetent criminal defendants of their substantive due process rights under the United States Constitution and the Utah Constitution.
Plaintiffs bring this putative class action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the State and related parties. The State now moves to dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. For the reasons stated below, the court denies the State's motion.
BACKGROUND
Before addressing the legal issues presented by the State's motion, the court first introduces the parties to this lawsuit, outlines the State's statutory procedure for identifying incompetent criminal defendants, and discusses the problem giving rise to this action.1
I. The Parties
Plaintiff Disability Law Center (DLC) and Individual Plaintiffs S.B., A.U, and S.W. bring this putative class action on behalf of themselves and the class of incompetent defendants they seek to represent. Each member of the putative class has been declared mentally incompetent to stand trial and is being, or has been, detained
in a county jail in State custody while awaiting transfer to Defendant Utah State Hospital (USH) for competency restoration treatment. USH is a state psychiatric hospital and the only facility in Utah that provides competency restoration treatment to criminal defendants who have been declared incompetent to stand trial.
DLC is a federally authorized and funded nonprofit corporation established under the Protection and Advocacy for Mentally Ill Individuals Act of 1986.2 Utah's Governor has designated DLC as the State's protection and advocacy system. In that capacity, DLC advocates for and seeks to protect the rights of people with disabilities, including individuals with mental illness.
S.B. is a criminal defendant charged with shoplifting. He is being held in State custody pending trial. A Utah trial court declared S.B. mentally incompetent to stand trial on March 11, 2015, and ordered that he be transferred to USH for competency restoration treatment. But because USH lacked space, it placed S.B. on its waiting list for admissions. S.B. was still incarcerated at the Utah County Jail when this case was filed on September 8, 2015.
A.U. is charged with violating the terms of his probation. On April 6, 2015, a Utah trial court declared A.U. mentally incompetent to stand trial and ordered that he be transferred to USH for competency restoration treatment. Yet, as it did with S.B., USH placed A.U. on its waiting list. A.U. remained in the custody of the Utah County Jail as of the filing of this case, even though the trial court ordered on June 8, 2015, that A.U. be released until space is available at USH.
S.W. is charged with shoplifting. A Utah trial court found S.W. mentally incompetent on May 7, 2015, and ordered that he be provided treatment, care, custody, and security that is adequate and appropriate for his needs and conditions. USH placed S.W. on its waiting list. S.W. was still held in the Salt Lake County Jail when this case was filed.
Defendants include the State, the Utah Department of Human Services (DHS), the Utah Division of Substance Abuse and Mental Health (DSAMH), and USH.3 DHS is charged by statute with providing competency restoration services to incompetent criminal defendants. DSAMH, which is a division of DHS, operates USH. Defendants also include three State officials who are sued in their official capacities: Ann Williamson, the Executive Director of DHS; Douglas Thomas, the Director of DSAMH; and Dallas Earnshaw, the Superintendent of USH.
II. The State's Statutory Scheme for Competency Restoration
The State has established a statutory procedure for identifying incompetent persons charged with a crime and for providing those persons with competency restoration treatment so their guilt or innocence can be determined at trial.
Utah law provides that a criminal defendant declared incompetent to stand trial shall not be tried for a criminal offense.4
When a criminal defendant's competency to stand trial is raised, the trial court must stay all proceedings and review the allegations of incompetency.5 If the court determines that the allegations “raise a bona fide doubt as to the defendant's competency to stand trial,” the court “shall order an examination of the defendant and a hearing on the defendant's mental condition.”6 At least two mental health experts must examine the defendant and provide to the court and counsel within thirty days of the court's order a report on the defendant's competency.7 The court usually must hold a competency hearing between five and fifteen days after receiving the report.8
If the court concludes after the hearing that the defendant is incompetent to stand trial, then “the court shall order the defendant committed to the custody of the executive director of the Department of Human Services or a designee for the purpose of treatment intended to restore the defendant to competency.”9 DHS, in turn, must transfer the defendant to USH, as it is the only Utah facility designated for providing competency restoration treatment to incompetent criminal defendants. Treatment teams at USH provide intensive individualized care and treatment in an attempt to restore the defendant's competency.
Once the defendant arrives at USH, an examiner must provide to the court and counsel within ninety days a report on the defendant's progress.10 The examiner may receive an additional ninety days to provide the report if he provides a progress report informing the court that more time is necessary to complete the assessment.11
After receiving the USH progress report and assessment, the court must hold a hearing to determine the defendant's current status. After the hearing, the court may do one of three things. First, if the court determines that the defendant has regained competency, the court must direct the defendant to stand trial.12 Second, if the court finds the defendant remains incompetent to stand trial with a substantial probability of regaining competency in the foreseeable future, then “the court may order that the defendant remain committed to the custody of the executive director of the Department of Human Services or a designee for the purpose of treatment intended to restore the defendant to competency.”13 Third, if the court concludes the defendant is incompetent to stand trial without a substantial probability of regaining competency in the foreseeable future, then the court must order the defendant released from the custody of DHS unless the prosecutor informs the court that civil commitment proceedings will be initiated.14 But “[i]n no event may the maximum period of detention ... exceed the maximum period of incarceration which the defendant could receive if the
defendant were convicted of the charged offense.”15
III. The Problem
The State's statutory scheme is not working. And USH's Forensic Facility is full. This means USH must place incompetent criminal defendants on a waiting list until a bed at USH becomes available. As a result, Plaintiffs allege that many incompetent defendants must wait in jail for months after a court declares them incompetent before they are transferred to USH for treatment. It is not uncommon for these individuals to remain incarcerated in county jails for six months or more after a court orders them transferred to USH for treatment. And in some cases, incompetent defendants are held...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Atayde v. Napa State Hosp., No. 1:16-cv-00398-DAD-SAB.
...bears no reasonable relation to the evaluative and restorative purpose for which he was committed."); Disability Law Center v. Utah , 180 F.Supp.3d 998, 1012 (D. Utah 2016) (finding that the plaintiff stated a cognizable substantive due process claim against a state hospital for detaining i......
-
Geness v. Cox, No. 17-2073
...See also Hunter v. Beshear , No. 2:16-cv-798-MHT, 2018 WL 564856 (M.D. Ala. Jan. 25, 2018) ; Disability Law Ctr. v. Utah , 180 F.Supp.3d 998 (D. Utah 2016) ; Advocacy Ctr. for the Elderly & Disabled v. La. Dep't of Health &Hosps. , 731 F.Supp.2d 603 (E.D. La. 2010) ; Terry ex rel. Terry v. ......
-
Powell v. Md. Dep't of Health, No. 77, Sept. Term, 2016.
...delay is unacceptable under due process without specifying what, if any, delay would pass muster. Disability Law Center v. Utah , 180 F.Supp.3d 998, 1004 (D. Utah 2016) (denying motion to dismiss due process claim on behalf of incompetent defendants forced to wait as much as six months for ......
-
Martin v. City of Okla. City, Case No. CIV-13-1064-D
...preempted.For these reasons, the Court finds that the City is entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff's declaratory judgment claims.180 F.Supp.3d 998ConclusionFor the reasons set forth herein, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on all claims asserted in the Complaint.IT IS THEREF......
-
Atayde v. Napa State Hosp., No. 1:16-cv-00398-DAD-SAB.
...bears no reasonable relation to the evaluative and restorative purpose for which he was committed."); Disability Law Center v. Utah , 180 F.Supp.3d 998, 1012 (D. Utah 2016) (finding that the plaintiff stated a cognizable substantive due process claim against a state hospital for detaining i......
-
Geness v. Cox, No. 17-2073
...See also Hunter v. Beshear , No. 2:16-cv-798-MHT, 2018 WL 564856 (M.D. Ala. Jan. 25, 2018) ; Disability Law Ctr. v. Utah , 180 F.Supp.3d 998 (D. Utah 2016) ; Advocacy Ctr. for the Elderly & Disabled v. La. Dep't of Health &Hosps. , 731 F.Supp.2d 603 (E.D. La. 2010) ; Terry ex rel. Terry v. ......
-
Powell v. Md. Dep't of Health, No. 77, Sept. Term, 2016.
...delay is unacceptable under due process without specifying what, if any, delay would pass muster. Disability Law Center v. Utah , 180 F.Supp.3d 998, 1004 (D. Utah 2016) (denying motion to dismiss due process claim on behalf of incompetent defendants forced to wait as much as six months for ......
-
Martin v. City of Okla. City, Case No. CIV-13-1064-D
...preempted.For these reasons, the Court finds that the City is entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff's declaratory judgment claims.180 F.Supp.3d 998ConclusionFor the reasons set forth herein, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on all claims asserted in the Complaint.IT IS THEREF......