Wyatt v. Stickney
Decision Date | 10 December 1971 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 3195-N. |
Parties | Ricky WYATT, by and through his Aunt and legal guardian Mrs. W. C. Rawlins, Jr., et al., Plaintiffs, v. Dr. Stonewall B. STICKNEY, as Commissioner of Mental Health and the State of Alabama Mental Health Officer, et al., Defendants, United States of America et al., Amici Curiae. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama |
George W. Dean, Jr., Destin, Fla., and Jack Drake, University, Ala., for the plaintiffs.
William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., and Gordon Madison and J. Jerry Wood, Asst. Attys. Gen., State of Alabama, Montgomery, Ala., for the defendants.
David L. Norman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Civil Rights Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., and Ira DeMent, U. S. Atty., Montgomery, Ala., for amicus curiae, The United States of America.
James F. Fitzpatrick, Jeffery D. Bauman and Stephen M. Sacks, of Arnold & Porter, Washington, D. C., Charles R. Halpern, Washington, D. C., and Bruce J. Ennis, New York City, for amici curiae the American Psychological Assn., American Orthopsychiatric Assn., and American Civil Liberties Union.
In this class action, originally filed in behalf of patients involuntarily confined for mental treatment purposes at Bryce Hospital, Tuscaloosa, Alabama,1 this Court on March 12, 1971, in a formal opinion and decree, 325 F.Supp. 781, among other things, held:
At the request of defendants, the Court in the March 1971 order allowed defendants six months to set standards and implement fully a treatment program so as to give each treatable patient a realistic opportunity to be cured or to improve his or her mental condition. The case is again submitted upon defendants' reports and the several objections thereto.2
In the matters presented to this Court by the parties, there seem to be three fundamental conditions for adequate and effective treatment programs in public mental institutions. These three fundamental conditions are: (1) a humane psychological and physical environment, (2) qualified staff in numbers sufficient to administer adequate treatment and (3) individualized treatment plans. The report filed by defendants with this Court, as well as the reports and objections of other parties who have studied the conditions at Bryce Hospital, demonstrates rather conclusively that the hospital is deficient in all three of these fundamental respects.
The psychological and physical environment problems are, in some instances, interrelated. For example, the dormitories are barn-like structures with no privacy for the patients. For most patients there is not even a space provided which he can think of as his own. The toilets in restrooms seldom have partitions between them. These are dehumanizing factors which degenerate the patients' self esteem. Also contributing to the poor psychological environment are the shoddy wearing apparel furnished the patients, the non-therapeutic work assigned to patients (mostly compulsory, uncompensated housekeeping chores), and the degrading and humiliating admissions procedure which creates in the patient an impression of the hospital as a prison or as a "crazy house". Other conditions which render the physical environment at Bryce critically substandard are extreme ventilation problems, fire and other emergency hazards, and overcrowding caused to some degree by poor utilization of space. In addition, the quality of the food served the patients is inferior. Only fifty cents per patient per day is spent for food, and sanitation procedures with regard to the preparation and service of food, commonly recognized as basic health practices and utilized at other such hospitals, are not followed at Bryce.
The second fundamental condition needed for effective treatment is a qualified and numerically sufficient staff. It is clear from the reports of Bryce's expert consultants that Bryce is wholly deficient in this area,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ruiz v. Estelle
...and have mandated that governmental entities be sensitive to their problems. See Wyatt v. Stickney, 325 F.Supp. 781 (M.D.Ala.1971), 334 F.Supp. 1341, 344 F.Supp. 373, 387 aff'd sub nom. Wyatt v. Aderholt, 503 F.2d 1305 (5th Cir. 1974); Halderman and the United States v. Pennhurst, 446 F.Sup......
-
SOCIETY FOR GOOD WILL TO RETARDED, ETC. v. Carey
...(E.D.N.Y.1973), 393 F.Supp. 715 (E.D.N.Y. 1975); Wyatt v. Stickney, 344 F.Supp. 373; 344 F.Supp. 387 (M.D.Ala.1972), enforcing 334 F.Supp. 1341 (M.D.Ala.1971), aff'd in part, decision reserved in part, remanded sub nom. Wyatt v. Alderholt, 503 F.2d 1305 (5th Cir. 1974); see also Note, The W......
-
Donaldson v. O'CONNOR
...committed mentally ill patients. Wyatt v. Stickney, M.D.Ala.1971, 325 F.Supp. 781, on submission of proposed standards by defendants, 334 F.Supp. 1341, enforced, 1972, 344 F.Supp. 373, 387, appeal docketed sub nom., Wyatt v. Aderholt, No. 72-2634, 5 Cir. Aug. 1, 1972; Stachulak v. Coughlin,......
-
Davis v. Balson
...1196, 1197 (N.D.Ohio 1974) hereinafter cited as Interim Order. Based upon the authority of Wyatt v. Stickney, 344 F.Supp. 373, 334 F.Supp. 1341 (M.D.Ala.1972), 325 F.Supp. 781 (M.D.Ala.1971), subsequently aff'd sub nom. Wyatt v. Aderholt, 503 F.2d 1305 (5th Cir. 1974), the Court ordered imp......
-
Foreword: Is Civil Rights Law Dead?
...Eisenberg and Yeazell give one mental institution case: "Wyatt v. Stickney [325 F. Supp 781 (M.D. Ala.), hearing on standards ordered, 334 F. Supp. 1341 (M.D. Ala. 1971), enforced, 344 F. Supp. 373 (M.D. Ala.), 344 F. Supp. 387 (M.D. Ala. 1972), aff'd sub nom. Wyatt v. Aderholt, 503 F.2d 13......
-
Access to civil commitment proceedings & records in Alabama: balancing privacy rights and the presumption of openness.
...2003 WL 222037034 (N.J. Super. 2003). (26) As described below, Wyatt v. Stickney, 325 F. Supp. 781 (M.D. Ala. 1971), enforced, 334 F. Supp. 1341 (M.D. Ala. 1971), 344 F. Supp. 373 (M.D. Ala. 1972), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, and remanded in part sub nom. Wyatt v. Aderholt, 503 F.2d 1305,......