Van Orden v. Schafer
| Decision Date | 11 September 2015 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 4:09CV00971 AGF. |
| Citation | 129 F.Supp.3d 839 |
| Parties | John VAN ORDEN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Keith SCHAFER, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
Anthony E. Rothert, American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri Foundation, Daniel K. O'Toole, John H. Quinn, III, Ronnie Lee White, II, Scott K.G. Kozak, Christopher Larose, Armstrong Teasdale, LLP, Andrew J. McNulty, ACLU of Missouri, Susan S. Kister, Susan Sherberg Kister, Attorney at Law, St. Louis, MO, Eric M. Selig, Rosenblum and Schwartz, Clayton, MO, Gillian R. Wilcox, ACLU of Missouri, Kansas City, MO, for Plaintiffs.
Katherine S. Walsh, Philip Sholtz, Mary Delworth Morris, Attorney General of Missouri, St. Louis, MO, Joseph Paul Dandurand, Joel A. Poole, Attorney General of Missouri, Jefferson City, MO, for Defendants.
AMENDED MEMORANDUM OPINION
This class action is before the Court following a bench trial to address Plaintiffs' claims in their Fifth Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs are civilly committed residents of the Missouri Department of Mental Health's ("DMH") Sex Offender Rehabilitation and Treatment Services ("SORTS") facilities, who have been declared sexually violent predators ("SVP") under Missouri's SVP Act, Mo.Rev.Stat. §§ 632.480 –632.525. Plaintiffs state claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting that the SVP Act is unconstitutional as written and as applied to SORTS, and that the reimbursement sought by the state from SORTS residents is also unconstitutional.
Plaintiffs are civilly committed residents of SORTS, who were committed to the custody of the DMH by a judgment of a Missouri circuit or probate court, pursuant to the SVP Act. On September 30, 2011, the Court certified this case as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2). The Court certified two classes: (1) a "Treatment Class" consisting of persons who are, or will be, during the pendency of this action, residents of SORTS as a result of civil commitment, and (2) a "Charging Class" consisting of persons who were, are, or will be, during the pendency of this action, residents of SORTS as a result of civil commitment, and who have been, or will be, billed or charged for care, treatment, room, or board by SORTS.
On the last day of trial, the parties informed the Court of their agreement that named Plaintiffs Macon Baker, David Brown, Joseph Bowen, and William Murphy are not members of the Treatment Class because they were solely pre-trial detainees,1 and that as such, their claims relating to treatment are moot. Baker and Brown were never committed to SORTS because a jury found that they did not meet the criteria of an SVP. And as of the last day of trial in this case, Bowen and Murphy had not been committed to SORTS and were awaiting a civil commitment trial to determine whether they met the criteria of an SVP. Other than these four individuals, all Plaintiffs are currently civilly committed at one of two SORTS facilities in Farmington and Fulton, Missouri.
Defendants are executives or employees of SORTS and the DMH, and all are sued solely in their official capacities.
Defendant Keith Schafer is the Director of the DMH. Defendant Mark Stringer is the Director of the DMH's Division of Behavioral Health. Defendant Richard Gowdy is the Deputy Director of the DMH's Division of Behavioral Health and the former Director of the DMH's Forensic Services. Defendant Joseph Parks is the former Chief Clinical Officer of the DMH's Office of Director. Defendant Robert Reitz is the Director of the DMH's Psychiatric Facilities and Chief Executive Officer of Fulton State Hospital, which houses SORTS–Fulton. Defendant Melissa Ring is the former Chief Operating Officer of Adult Psychiatric Services ("APS") at the Southeast Missouri Mental Health Center ("SMMHC"), whose responsibilities included supervision of SORTS–Farmington. Defendant Alan Blake is the former Chief Operating Officer of SORTS and is currently a SORTS consultant. Defendant Jay Englehart is the Medical Director of the SMMHC and the Director of Treatment Services for SORTS–Farmington. Defendant Julie Inman is the Regional Executive Officer of the Southeast Region of the DMH, which includes the SMMHC and SORTS. Defendant Linda Moll is the Director of Behavioral Treatment Services, APS at the SMMHC. Defendants Harold Myers and Judy Sumpter are reimbursement officers at the SMMHC. Defendant Damon Longworth is the Chief Financial Officer of the SMMHC. Defendant Donna Augustine is the Director of Social Work at the SMMHC. Defendant David Schmitt is the Chief Operating Officer of the SMMHC, and the former Quality Improvement Director of the SMMHC. Defendant Justin Arnett is the Chief Nurse Executive of the SMMHC. Defendant Marty Martin–Foreman is the Chief Operating Officer of Fulton State Hospital. Defendant Ian Fluger is the Program Treatment Coordinator of SORTS–Fulton. Defendant Sherry Lee is the Chief Nurse Executive of Fulton State Hospital. Defendant Kristina Bender–Crice is a Unit Program Supervisor at SORTS–Farmington. Defendant Erica Kempker is a former employee of SORTS–Farmington.
Plaintiffs claim that that the SVP Act on its face and as applied to the SORTS treatment program violates the Due Process Clause, and that the reimbursement sought by the state from SORTS residents also violates the Due Process Clause.2 Plaintiffs assert two types of as-applied claims regarding treatment. First, Plaintiffs claim that particular modalities of treatment at SORTS are inadequate due to staff and funding shortages. Second, Plaintiffs claim that the entire SORTS treatment program is a sham because, in its 16 years of operation, SORTS has neither established the risk assessment and release procedures contemplated by the SVP Act, nor successfully treated and released, following such treatment, any residents back into the community.
After extensive informal and formal discovery, the Court, on December 19, 2014, granted Plaintiffs' uncontested motion to bifurcate the trial into two phases: liability and remedy. (Doc. No. 358.) An eight-day trial solely on the issue of liability was held beginning on April 21, 2015.
Four expert witnesses testified at trial. Clinical psychologist Brian Abbott, Ph.D., and licensed clinical social worker David Prescott testified for Plaintiffs. Dr. Abbott has extensive experience in developing, implementing, and reviewing treatment programs for sex offenders, and in conducting forensic evaluations of individuals civilly committed as SVPs. Prescott formerly served as Treatment Assessment Director of Wisconsin's SVP program, and he, too, has extensive experience in developing, assessing, and providing training regarding SVP treatment programs around the country, including at SORTS. Prescott also formerly served as a board member and president of the national Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers ("ATSA"), and he currently serves on the board of directors of the national Sex Offender Civil Commitment Providers' Network ("SOCCPN").
Clinical psychologist Anita Schlank, Ph.D., and forensic psychiatrist Angeline Stanislaus, M.D., testified for Defendants. Dr. Schlank is the Clinical Director of Virginia's SVP civil commitment program. She has provided sex offender evaluation and treatment for approximately 30 years, formerly served as the Clinical Director of Minnesota's SVP civil commitment program, and has served as a consultant for several other SVP civil commitment programs around the country, including SORTS. She also serves on the board of directors of SOCCPN. Dr. Stanislaus is the Chief Medical Director of Adult Services for the DMH, and she oversees the two hospitals in which the SORTS facilities are housed. Dr. Stanislaus also has several years of experience in conducting forensic evaluations of civilly committed sex offenders in Illinois and has testified as an expert witness in numerous civil commitment trials.
The following findings of fact and conclusions of law are entered based on the entire record, including the trial testimony and exhibits, and the parties' post-trial briefs. As set forth below, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have proved their claims in part.
Missouri's SVP Act permits the state to involuntarily detain individuals outside of the criminal justice system, potentially indefinitely, under a civil commitment process designed to protect the public from persons who suffer from severe mental abnormalities and who are dangerous. Unlike criminal systems, which punish individuals for past criminal conduct, civil commitment systems such as SORTS involuntarily confine individuals who have in many cases already served complete prison sentences for their crimes, but who, by reason of mental illness or abnormality, are deemed likely to commit acts of violence in the future.
Where so significant a restriction of an individual's liberty is at issue, the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution requires that the nature and duration of the confinement bear some reasonable relation to the confinement's non-punitive, civil purpose. Thus, the state must ensure that it civilly confines individuals only so long as they are both mentally ill and dangerous. If confinement continues beyond that time, or if it imposes restrictions that are so excessive as to indicate the forbidden purpose to punish, it becomes unconstitutional.
The evidence at trial did not establish that the SVP Act is unconstitutional in all of its applications, or that the particular treatment modalities at SORTS are so lacking as to violate the Due Process Clause. Nor did the evidence establish that the state's reimbursement scheme is unconstitutional. Therefore, the Court will deny relief with respect to Plaintiffs' claims challenging the SVP Act on its face, challenging the constitutional adequacy of the SORTS treatment modalities, and challenging the state's reimbursement...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Willis v. Palmer
...sex offender treatment. Judge Fleissig considered the appropriate standard and found that “shock the conscience” applied. See Van Orden , 129 F.Supp.3d at 868, stating, “[p]laintiffs cannot prevail on their first type of as-applied claims unless they prove that the treatment at SORTS is so ......
-
Willis v. Palmer
...and Minnesota's sex offender commitment systems. See Ireland v. Anderson, 2014 WL 3732014 (D. N.D. 2014), Van Orden v. Schafer, 129 F. Supp. 3d 839, 841 (E.D. Mo. 2015) and Karsjens v. Jesson, 109 F. Supp. 3d 1139, 1144 (D. Minn. 2015). In the latter two cases, federal district courts condu......
-
Brown v. State
...during his SVP trial. The probate court's judgment is affirmed.Victor C. Howard and Gary D. Witt, Judges, concur.1 Van Orden v. Schafer, 129 F.Supp.3d 839 (E.D. Mo. 2015). In that case, the federal district court determined that Missouri's SVPA was unconstitutional as applied to the plainti......
-
In re J.D.B.
...is incorrect."); see also Van Orden , 271 S.W.3d at 585.Regarding the federal forum, J.D.B. primarily relies on Van Orden v. Schafer , 129 F.Supp.3d 839 (E.D. Mo. 2015). During the pendency of J.D.B.'s appeal, the United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, vacated the part of the Schafer ......