University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Baker v. DesLauriers MH-KS-0001
Docket / Court 6:14-cv-01356 ( D. Kan. )
State/Territory Kansas
Case Type(s) Mental Health (Facility)
Case Summary
On October 27, 2014, various former prisoners forced to enroll in Kansas’s Sexual Predator Treatment Program after their release from prison filed this lawsuit in the U.S District Court for the District of Kansas. The plaintiffs sued the Sexual Predator Treatment Program (SPTP), Larned State ... read more >
On October 27, 2014, various former prisoners forced to enroll in Kansas’s Sexual Predator Treatment Program after their release from prison filed this lawsuit in the U.S District Court for the District of Kansas. The plaintiffs sued the Sexual Predator Treatment Program (SPTP), Larned State Hospital, the Kansas Department for Aging and Disability Services, and the State of Kansas under 42 U.S.C §1983, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 (Rehabilitation Act), and Kansas state law. Representing themselves pro se while still enrolled in the Sexual Predator Treatment Program, the plaintiffs asked for declaratory and injunctive relief along with monetary damages. In their claim for relief, they cited violations of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, along with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and Kansas State Law (K.S.A. § 59-29a22(b)(3)).

More specifically, the plaintiffs argue that the SPTP is, in both design and in application, a source of punishment rather than therapy, which violates not only the laws designed to protect recipients of therapy, but also constitutional prohibitions against ex post facto punishment and double jeopardy. They allege that the program was in many ways equivalent to or in some instances worse than prison in the restrictions that it imposed and in the conditions that enrollees were subjected to, and that these restrictions and conditions violate the ADA and Section 504. They further argue that those restrictions and conditions are contrary to any purported goals of therapy or rehabilitation, that the program is otherwise ill-equipped to provide therapeutic or rehabilitative services, and that the program thus violates the constitutional prohibitions against ex post facto punishment and double jeopardy.

The case is ongoing and is in its early stages. The plaintiffs have asked for the case to be made a class action, and also sought appointment of counsel. On February 9, 2015, Magistrate Judge Kenneth Gale stayed the matter in order to solicit the participation of pro bono lawyers. Apparently tired of waiting, the plaintiffs on March 31, 2016 asked for that stay to be lifted, but Judge Gale denied the motion, emphasizing that he was actively working to find counsel and that the plaintiffs could not adequately represent themselves.

Ryan Berry - 05/18/2016


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Constitutional Clause
Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Due Process
Ex Post Facto
Free Exercise Clause
Right to travel
Self-incrimination
Unreasonable search and seizure
Defendant-type
Corrections
Hospital/Health Department
Disability
Mental impairment
General
Access to lawyers or judicial system
Assault/abuse by residents/inmates/students
Assault/abuse by staff
Bathing and hygiene
Classification / placement
Commitment procedure
Conditions of confinement
Confinement/isolation
Deinstitutionalization/decarceration
Discharge & termination plans
Family reunification
Informed consent/involuntary medication
Loss or damage to property
Neglect by staff
Parents (visitation, involvement)
Placement in detention facilities
Placement in mental health facilities
Reassessment and care planning
Recreation / Exercise
Rehabilitation
Religious programs / policies
Restraints : chemical
Restraints : physical
Sanitation / living conditions
Sex offender regulation
Totality of conditions
Visiting
Work release or work assignments
Medical/Mental Health
Mental health care, general
Mental Disability
Mental Illness, Unspecified
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Type of Facility
Government-run
Causes of Action 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.
Section 504 (Rehabilitation Act), 29 U.S.C. § 701
State law
Defendant(s) Sexual Predator Treatment Program
Plaintiff Description Persons released from prison but civilly committed to the Kansas Sexual Predator Treatment Program
Indexed Lawyer Organizations None on record
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status granted Pending
Prevailing Party None Yet / None
Public Int. Lawyer No
Nature of Relief None yet
Source of Relief None yet
Form of Settlement None on record
Order Duration not on record
Case Closing Year n/a
Case Ongoing Yes
Docket(s)
6:14−cv−01356−JTM−KGG (D. Kan.) 04/04/2016
MH-KS-0001-9000.pdf | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Complaint 10/27/2014
MH-KS-0001-0001.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Denial of Motion To Lift Stay 04/04/2016 (D. Kan.)
MH-KS-0001-0002.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [Granting motion to appoint counsel] 05/19/2016 (D. Kan.)
MH-KS-0001-0003.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Crow, Sam A. (D. Kan.) [Magistrate]
MH-KS-0001-9000
Gale, Kenneth G (D. Kan.) [Magistrate]
MH-KS-0001-0002 | MH-KS-0001-0003 | MH-KS-0001-9000
Humphreys, Karen M. (D. Kan.) [Magistrate]
MH-KS-0001-9000
Marten, John Thomas (D. Kan.)
MH-KS-0001-9000
Melgren, Eric F. (D. Kan.)
MH-KS-0001-9000
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers None on record
Defendant's Lawyers None on record
Other Lawyers None on record

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -