Jackson v. Los Lunas Cmty. Program

• Decision Date: 23 January 2018
• Docket Number: No. 16-2172,16-2172
• Citation: 880 F.3d 1176
• Parties: Walter Stephen JACKSON, by his parents and next friends, Walter and Helen Jackson; Steve Nunez, by his guardian and next friend, ARC of New Mexico; Mary Katherine Nowak, by her next friend, James W. Ellis, Esquire; Richard Stanfield, by his father and next friend, The Reverend Clyde Stanfield; Betty Young, by her next friend, Mary Dudley, Ph.D.; Kelly Van Curen, by her parents and next friends, Ted and Sallie Van Curen, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs–Appellees, and ARC of New Mexico; Ava Peets, Plaintiffs Intervenors–Appellees, v. LOS LUNAS COMMUNITY PROGRAM ; New Mexico Department of Health; Lynn Gallagher, in her official capacity as Secretary of the New Mexico Department of Health; Jill Marshall, in her official capacity as Administrator for the Los Lunas Community Program; New Mexico Human Services Department; Brent Earnest, in his official capacity as Secretary of the New Mexico Human Services Department; New Mexico Public Education Department ; Joe D. Cordova, in his official capacity as Director of the New Mexico Vocational Rehabilitation Division, Defendants–Appellants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

880 F.3d 1176

Walter Stephen JACKSON, by his parents and next friends, Walter and Helen Jackson; Steve Nunez, by his guardian and next friend, ARC of New Mexico; Mary Katherine Nowak, by her next friend, James W. Ellis, Esquire; Richard Stanfield, by his father and next friend, The Reverend Clyde Stanfield; Betty Young, by her next friend, Mary Dudley, Ph.D.; Kelly Van Curen, by her parents and next friends, Ted and Sallie Van Curen, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs–Appellees,andARC of New Mexico; Ava Peets, Plaintiffs Intervenors–Appellees,

v.LOS LUNAS COMMUNITY PROGRAM ; New Mexico Department of Health; Lynn Gallagher, in her official capacity as Secretary of the New Mexico Department of Health; Jill Marshall, in her official capacity as Administrator for the Los Lunas Community Program; New Mexico Human Services Department; Brent Earnest, in his official capacity as Secretary of the New Mexico Human Services Department; New Mexico Public Education Department ; Joe D. Cordova, in his official capacity as Director of the New Mexico Vocational Rehabilitation Division, Defendants–Appellants.

No. 16-2172

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

FILED January 23, 2018

Jerry A. Walz (James J. Grubel appeared with him on the briefs), Walz and Associates, P.C., Albuquerque, New Mexico, for Defendants–Appellants.

Steven J. Schwartz, Center for Public Representation, Northampton, Massachusetts (Cathy Costanzo, Center for Public Representation, Northampton, Massachusetts; Peter Cubra, Albuquerque, New Mexico; Philip Davis, Albuquerque, New Mexico; Ann Sims, Los Lunas, New Mexico; Tim Gardner and Nancy Koenigsberg, Disability Rights New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico, appeared with him on the briefs), for Plaintiffs–Appellees.

Before MATHESON, McKAY, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.

McHUGH, Circuit Judge.

This civil rights class action lawsuit was filed thirty years ago to challenge various aspects of the institutionalization of developmentally disabled individuals at two state-supported facilities in New Mexico. After a lengthy trial in 1990, the district court ruled that Defendants—the two institutions and the individuals charged with their operation—were violating class members' federal constitutional and statutory rights. The district court ordered the parties to develop a plan to cure the violations, and the plan was implemented over the ensuing years through several consent decrees and other court-approved agreements (collectively, consent decrees). Although the two institutions closed in the 1990s, the district court has continued to monitor whether Defendants are in compliance with the obligations set forth in those consent decrees (decree obligations). And in the twenty-five years since the court's initial ruling, the parties have agreed to, and the court has approved, numerous additional decree obligations of varying specificity with which Defendants must comply before the court will discontinue its oversight. As of the district court's most recent order, Defendants had yet to fulfill over 300 decree obligations.

In August 2015, Defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5) to vacate all consent decrees and to terminate the court's oversight, arguing that changed factual circumstances warrant the requested relief. The district court denied the motion in June 2016. Defendants appealed. We vacate the 2016 Order and remand for the district court to decide whether Defendants are currently violating class members' federal constitutional or statutory rights and to reassess the equity of continuing federal oversight with the benefit of that determination.

I. BACKGROUND

To provide context for this dispute, we begin with an overview of the procedural history of this multi-decade litigation. We then examine the district court's ruling on Defendants' Rule 60(b)(5) motion under the governing legal standard.

A. Litigation History

In July 1987, twenty-one developmentally disabled individuals brought this class action lawsuit on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated. In their complaint, Plaintiffs challenged the conditions of institutionalization at Fort Stanton Hospital and Training School (Fort Stanton) and Los Lunas Hospital and Training School (Los Lunas), both of which were state-supported institutions for the developmentally disabled in New Mexico. Jackson v. Fort Stanton Hosp. & Training Sch. (Jackson II ), 964 F.2d 980, 985 (10th Cir. 1992). Plaintiffs sought to correct the federal constitutional and statutory deficiencies of the conditions at Fort Stanton and Los Lunas. Id. They also requested relief permitting developmentally disabled persons residing at the institutions to live in integrated family-like settings within the community. Id.

In June 1988, the district court allowed more than 125 parents and guardians of residents at Fort Stanton and Los Lunas to intervene. Id. Like Plaintiffs, Intervenors sought to bring the conditions at the two institutions into compliance with federal constitutional and statutory law. Id. But Intervenors opposed Plaintiffs' efforts to require mandatory transfer of the institutions' residents to community-based facilities. Id.

In June 1989, the district court certified a class of "all persons who at that time resided at [Fort Stanton] or [Los Lunas], all persons who would become residents of the institutions during the pendency of the action, and all persons who had been transferred from these two institutions to other facilities funded by [D]efendants." Id.

1. The 1990 Order

After a prolonged trial, the district court issued, on December 28, 1990, an extensive Memorandum Opinion and Order (1990 Order). Jackson v. Fort Stanton Hosp. & Training Sch. (Jackson I ), 757 F.Supp. 1243 (D.N.M. 1990), rev'd in part , 964 F.2d 980 (10th Cir. 1992). In the 1990 Order, the court "made detailed findings of fact regarding almost every aspect of the conditions" at the two institutions, Jackson II , 964 F.2d at 986, and determined that the conditions were statutorily and constitutionally deficient in eighteen areas, Jackson I , 757 F.Supp. at 1315–16.¹ The court concluded that Defendants were discriminating against class members in violation of § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 by failing to provide adequate accommodations for severely handicapped residents capable of residing in a community setting, while simultaneously serving less severely handicapped individuals in the community. See id. at 1297–99 ; see also 29 U.S.C. § 794. And the court ruled that Defendants were violating class members' substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and Youngberg v. Romeo , 457 U.S. 307, 102 S.Ct. 2452, 73 L.Ed.2d 28 (1982). See Jackson I , 757 F.Supp. at 1305–13. Specifically, the court ruled that Defendants were violating due process by failing to provide residents of the two institutions with minimally adequate medical care; by failing "to provide reasonable conditions of safety for the residents"; by physically restraining residents as a result of understaffing; by failing to provide "minimally adequate training" to the residents; and by failing to implement recommendations by interdisciplinary treatment teams (Teams)—consisting of qualified professionals—that certain of these residents should be placed in community settings. Id. at 1306–07, 1312.²

The district court ordered the parties to work together in good faith "to formulate by agreement a plan to correct" the eighteen areas of deficiencies at the two institutions. Id. at 1315. The court required the parties to formulate a "detailed written policy to be adopted by and followed at each institution," to designate persons responsible at each institution for implementing the correction plans, to describe the "strategies to be adopted by each institution" in order to ensure successful implementation of the correction plans, and to develop a "detailed timetable establishing deadlines by which specific components of the correction plan for each deficiency will be achieved." Id. at 1316. The court also set September 10, 1991, as the deadline for "complete correction of all deficiencies." Id. And the court required the parties to describe the "[m]eans of assuring continued compliance with appropriate standards after correction of the deficiencies has been achieved." Id.

The court further ordered Defendants to prepare, by March 1, 1991, "a written plan of transfer to an appropriate community setting for each resident whose [Team] has recommended placement in a community setting." Id. at 1317. The court urged Plaintiffs to confer in good faith with Defendants to resolve any concerns Plaintiffs may have with the proposed plans and to amend the plans accordingly. Id. at 1316–17. The court also afforded Plaintiffs the opportunity to "file with the court and serve on [D]efendants a statement of any remaining objections they may have to, and their proposals for amending, any particular plan." Id.

Over the next several years, the district court entered various remedial orders and continued to oversee enforcement of those orders.³ See Jackson v. Los Lunas Ctr. (Jackson III ), No. CIV 87-839-JAP/KBM, 2016 WL 9777237, at *2 (D.N.M. June 14, 2016).

2. The 1994 Stipulation Concerning Fort Stanton

In 1994, New Mexico elected to close Fort Stanton by 1995 and to transfer all of the residents at the institution to community-based services. In April 1994, the parties filed a joint motion under Rule 60(b) and Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail , 502 U.S. 367, 112 S.Ct. 748, 116 L.Ed.2d 867 (1992), to modify portions of the district court's 1990 Order, and to terminate the 1990 Order's requirements as to Fort Stanton upon closure of that facility.

The district court found the parties' joint motion "well-taken" and determined that "the proposed modification is consistent with the rights of the classmembers." JA Vol. 3 at 582. As a result, the court relieved Defendants from making further...