Robinson v. Leahy
| Decision Date | 08 October 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 73 C 1939.,73 C 1939. |
| Citation | 401 F. Supp. 1027 |
| Parties | Jerry ROBINSON, by his court-appointed Attorneys and Advocates, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Mary Lee LEAHY, acting director, Illinois Department of Children and Family Services, et al., Defendants. UNITED STATES ex rel. Jerry ROBINSON, Petitioner, v. Allyn SIELAFF, Director of Corrections, and Jay Robert Webber, Administrator of Field Services, Illinois Department of Corrections, Respondents. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
John D. Shullenberger, James M. De Zelar, Joan D. Levin and Roger B. Derstine, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiffs.
John Dienner, III, Asst. State's Atty., Richard Ryan, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Chicago, Ill., for defendants.
Plaintiff Jerry Robinson has brought a broad ranging class action civil rights complaint1 concerning the interaction of various institutions of the State of Illinois with juveniles. The treatment of plaintiff as a ward of the state, in need of psychiatric and counselling help, and as a juvenile being adjudicated as delinquent, has been alleged to have been carried out so as to offend the federal constitution. The relief sought is equally broad, including damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, and a writ of habeas corpus.
Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss which raises the following issues: whether the complaint states a cause of action against the state defendants; whether the allegations of the complaint, taken as true, state a basis for declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2201; whether the writ of habeas corpus is unavailable to plaintiff because of his failure to exhaust state remedies as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2254; whether some of the equitable relief requested must be treated as equivalent to the writ of habeas corpus; and whether the injunctive relief requested would be contrary to the doctrine of comity set forth by Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971) and succeeding cases. For the reasons that follow, the defendants' motion will be granted in part and denied in part.
For the purpose of resolving the pending motion, the court takes all the allegations of the complaint as true. Plaintiff was adjudicated a ward by the Juvenile Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County at the age of three. Subsequently, he spent six and one-half years at two residential institutions,2 at least one of which was designated for emotionally disturbed boys. He was then diagnosed as being in need of psychiatric treatment and of a protective residential environment.
Plaintiff later came to live with his father; afterward he lived at a temporary shelter care facility maintained by the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services, and was then admitted to the Tinley Park Mental Health Center. He was released from that institution upon his own request. At that time he was about fifteen years old,3 and presumably still a ward of the state. Plaintiff then again resided with his natural father, until the father charged him with theft, following which a petition was filed asking the Juvenile Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County to declare plaintiff to be delinquent.
At the proceeding in the Juvenile Division, Judge Navin appointed a Public Defender to represent the plaintiff. Plaintiff then admitted the theft although he had not been informed by either counsel or the judge as to the consequences of his admission, nor was he informed that he could remain silent and receive the panoply of rights associated with an adjudicatory hearing.
Although no finding of probable cause was made, nor any finding which would otherwise have justified detaining the plaintiff, he was held in custody by the court for almost four weeks, during which time he was afforded a psychiatric interview that lasted less than one hour. At the end of the four week period, plaintiff was committed to the Illinois Department of Corrections, partly on the strength of the psychiatric report. No finding of delinquency was formally made.
Throughout the period the complaint outlines, plaintiff had a guardian through the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services, or its governmental predecessor. Plaintiff challenges the manner in which the guardianship was carried out with respect to the treatment which was selected for him, in view of the diagnostic or other information available to the guardian. Plaintiff similarly challenges the practices of Juvenile Division judge, and of the Public Defender's Office regarding the proceedings, detention, and commitment which plaintiff has undergone. The practices of the Juvenile Division, Public Defender's Office, and of the Department of Children and Family Services are alleged as ongoing with respect to plaintiff's class.
Plaintiff asks the court to declare the practices of defendants as violative of the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, that defendants be enjoined from continuing these practices, that records of the delinquency admissions or findings4 be expunged, and that each category of defendants (the Juvenile Division, the Public Defenders Office, the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services) present plans to this court showing that their constitutional and Illinois statutory duties are being properly carried out regarding plaintiff and his class, so as to reduce the likelihood of a recurrence of the violations plaintiff has sustained.
Plaintiff cites several Illinois statutes5 which supposedly indicate state responsibilities that have not, under these allegations, been met. While the court is hesitant to dismiss any aspects of the complaint for failure to state a cause of action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), it should be noted that a failure to follow the dictates of a state statute does not, by itself, constitute a civil rights violation. See Chism v. Price, 457 F.2d 1037 (9th Cir. 1972); Dorsey v. NAACP, 408 F.2d 1022 (5th Cir. 1969); Brosten v. Scheeler, 360 F.Supp. 608 (N.D.Ill.1973), aff'd without opinion, 495 F.2d 1375 (7th Cir. 1974). Plaintiff does not allege any discrimination whatsoever to have taken place. Consequently, the complaint must rise or fall according to the existence of a constitutional right to the treatment plaintiff would contend he should have gotten. Fundamental fairness requires a constitutional right to be apprised of the serious consequences of an admission at a juvenile proceeding, particularly where the state has appointed a lawyer in whom the juvenile is likely to place great trust. See In Re: Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 34-42, 47-57, 87 S.Ct. 1428, 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967); See also U. S. v. Watts, 513 F.2d 5 (10th Cir. 1975); Kemplen v. Maryland, 428 F.2d 169 (4th Cir. 1970).
The law has by no means settled the question of the existence of a constitutional right to treatment which may flow from the function of the state in the life of a ward or even of an inmate of an institution. The Supreme Court has thus far declined a general discussion of the matter, and has considered the existence of such a right only in the context of an infringement upon liberty.6 Other judicial considerations of the matter have also occurred in the context of an involuntary placement which infringes liberty. Wyatt v. Anderholt, 503 F.2d 1305 (5th Cir. 1974) (); Nelson v. Heyne, 491 F.2d 352 (7th Cir. 1974) cert. denied, 417 U.S. 976, 94 S.Ct. 3183, 41 L.Ed.2d 1146 (1975) (); Morales v. Turman, 364 F.Supp. 166 (E.D.Tex.1973); Martella v. Kelley, 349 F.Supp. 575 (S.D. N.Y.1972). The right, however, may be considerably broader, as the following language by the late Judge Kiley in Nelson v. Heyne, supra may indicate:
"When a state assumes the place of a juvenile's parents, it assumes as well the parental duties, and its treatment of its juveniles should, so far as can be reasonably required, be what proper parental care would provide." 491 F.2d 360.
Further briefs from the parties directed squarely to the scope of this right, the extent to which mere wardship, and actual involuntary institutional commitment trigger the right, will aid this court in presiding over this litigation, and particularly in fashioning the scope of prospective relief, should such relief be justified. Nonetheless, the court finds that the complaint states a cause of action with regard to the state's treatment of plaintiff's case. It should be emphasized, however, that, depending on the facts brought out, retrospective monetary relief may address a limited span of time, given the public nature of the defendants and the very nascent quality of this law. See Slate v. McFetridge, 484 F.2d 1169, 1174 (7th Cir. 1973); Collins v. Bensinger, 374 F.Supp. 273 (N.D.Ill.), aff'd without opinion, 506 F. 2d 1405 (7th Cir. 1974).
Given the court's determination that a cause of action has been stated, declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202 is properly requested by the complaint.
Part of plaintiff's complaint centers around the procedure by which he made an admission which presumably contributed to his being committed to the Illinois Department of Corrections. As the admission is allegedly constitutionally infirm, plaintiff wants the effect of the admission to be erased, namely the record of the admission, and the continuation of his commitment. The issue is not moot for plaintiff, even though his commitment now consists only of parole. Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236, 83 S.Ct. 373, 9 L.Ed.2d 285 (1963). Parole is considered a kind of confinement, for purposes of this discussion.
Where plaintiff seeks relief from the duration or fact of confinement, a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Claiborne v. Illinois Central Railroad
-
Law v. Witczak
...Joliet, 715 F.2d 1200, 1205 (7th Cir. 1983); Hagee v. City of Evanston, 530 F. Supp. 585, 587 (N.D. Ill. 1982); Robinson v. Leary, 401 F. Supp. 1027, 1030-31 (N.D. Ill. 1975). It is certain that a violation of a duty under a state statute, by itself, is not sufficient to state a § 1983 clai......