Case: Oregon Advocacy Center v. Mink

3:02-cv-00339 | U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon

Filed Date: March 19, 2002

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon on March 19, 2002, by the Oregon Advocacy Center (“OAC”), representing criminal patients unable to stand trial due to mental illness; the Metropolitan Public Defender Services, Inc. (“MPD”); and a criminal patient who waited 23 days after being found unfit to stand trial before admittance to a proper mental health treatment facility. The plaintiffs sued the Oregon Department of Human Services (“DHS”) under the Protecti…

This lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon on March 19, 2002, by the Oregon Advocacy Center (“OAC”), representing criminal patients unable to stand trial due to mental illness; the Metropolitan Public Defender Services, Inc. (“MPD”); and a criminal patient who waited 23 days after being found unfit to stand trial before admittance to a proper mental health treatment facility. The plaintiffs sued the Oregon Department of Human Services (“DHS”) under the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness (“PAIMI”) Act, 42 U.S.C. § 10805. The plaintiffs were represented by Disabilities Rights Oregon, the Protection & Advocacy organization for the state of Oregon. The complaint for this case is not available in electronic form, but according to the Findings of Fact & Conclusion of Law by District Court Judge Owen M. Panner, the plaintiffs sought declaratory and permanent injunctive relief along with attorneys’ fees and costs. 2002 WL 35578910 (D. Or. 2002).

The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants violated Oregon criminal patients’ Due Process constitutional rights by failing to promptly transfer these individuals to an appropriate state mental health hospital, leaving them in various county jails without proper treatment. On March 25, 2002, Oregon State Hospital (“OSH”) had a list of 11 criminal patients unable to stand trial, who were awaiting transport to a facility. Plaintiffs claim that the county jails in which these criminal patients were residing while awaiting transfer were unequipped to handle these types of patients. They claimed that these jails were “rudimentary”, “lack[ed] people who [were] trained to care for mentally ill people”, while one in particular was described as having “virtually no mental health treatment” at all. According to the plaintiffs, the wait time for these individuals was unacceptable, and the criminal patient population had a high suicide risk and that psychosis can be an emergency requiring immediate treatment; therefore, prompt transfer to a proper mental health facility that can help deal with these situations would be critical. 2002 WL 35578910 (D. Or. 2002).

On March 19, 2002, the plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. This motion was denied by Judge Panner on March 25, 2002. On March 29, 2002, the defendants filed a motion for protective order, but it was denied by Judge Panner on the same day.

On May 10, 2002, Judge Panner entered a Findings of Fact & Conclusion of Law. 2002 WL 35578910 (D. Or. 2002). The district court found all individuals have a right to be free from incarceration, absent a criminal conviction. Specifically, the court found that it was the state’s interest to assist restoring competency to criminal patients, not to punish them. The court stated that while Oregon county jails did not have the capacity to provide adequate mental health treatment tailored to rehabilitate or restore competency, OSH does. The court recognized that persons found unable to stand trial, yet remain incarcerated, were entitled to prompt treatment in a rehabilitative facility, as even short periods of incarceration could cause extreme harm. The court held that the defendants violated the due process rights of the criminal patients unfit to stand trial. Accordingly, the court ordered that all admissions of these individuals to a state hospital be done in a reasonably timely manner no more than seven days after an order determining a criminal defendant to be unable to stand trial due to mental incapacities. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the order. 2002 WL 35578910 (D. Or. 2002).

On May 14, 2002, the defendants filed a notice of appeal from the Findings of Fact & Conclusion of Law and filed a motion to stay judgment pending appeal. The next day Judge Panner entered a judgment for the plaintiffs, while also retaining jurisdiction to enforce the injunction. 2002 WL 35578888 (D. Or. 2002). On May 27, 2002, Judge Panner denied the defendants’ May 14 motion to stay, concluding that the defendants failed to show a strong showing that their appeal was likely to succeed. Judge Panner was eventually proven correct on this conclusion, as on March 6, 2003, Ninth Circuit of The United States Court of Appeals affirmed District Court Judge Panner’s judgment in an opinion by Circuit Judge Raymond C. Fisher. 322 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2003). The Court of Appeals concluded that OAC had standing to bring the suit, and upheld the district court’s injunction.

The plaintiffs filed a motion for attorneys’ fees on May 15, 2002, which Judge Panner granted on May 29 of that same year. The plaintiffs were awarded $53,062.50 in attorneys’ fees and $600.86 in costs. On July 30, 2003, the 9th Circuit Court awarded plaintiffs an additional $31,252.50 in attorneys’ fees to cover the appeal.

On May 19, 2019, litigation suddenly resumed. The plaintiffs filed a motion for a finding of contempt because the defendants admitted, in sworn testimony, that they had been violating the injunction since October 2018. Rather than transporting patients to OSH within seven days, the defendants, MPD attorneys reported, had taken approximately one month to transport recent clients. The case was reassigned from Judge Owen M. Panner to Judge Michael W. Mosman because Judge Panner passed away in 2018. On June 12, 2019, Judge Mosman denied the motion for a finding of contempt but scheduled a compliance hearing. The plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit, but the appeal was dismissed voluntarily on September 5, 2019.  

On August 23, 2019, the plaintiffs requested modification of the injunction and a declaratory judgment that they were the prevailing party––for the purposes of attorneys’ fees––because the defendants resumed compliance with the injunction following the motion for contempt. On October 28, 2019, Judge Mosman denied the plaintiffs’ request for declaratory judgment, reasoning that, since the injunction did not provide for monitoring, the monitoring work done by DRO and MPD was not compensable. Additionally, Judge Mosman concluded that there was not sufficient proof that plaintiff’s motion for contempt spurred the defendant to return to compliance because OSH had been sporadically complying with the injunction between 2018 and 2019 and had been working on its compliance issues before the plaintiffs’ motion. Judge Mosman also declined to modify the injunction to require monitoring by the plaintiff because defendants’ noncompliance was not a “significant change,” and there was no evidence that the new legislation creating a diversion program had slowed down admission at OSH.  

On April 17, 2020, the defendants filed a motion to modify the injunction because OSH could not safely comply with the injunction due to COVID-19. The defendants requested to temporarily limit admissions until “it is medically safe for OSH to begin accepting patients in the normal course again” and be able to admit small groups of patients onto specialized admissions units with the ability to quarantine new admissions. On May 13, 2020, Judge Mosman granted defendants’ proposed modification of the injunction. The defendant was required to submit progress reports to the court and the plaintiffs with updates on progress towards eliminating the backlog of patients and not have a quarantine period longer than 14 days. On June 12, 2020, plaintiffs appealed the modification of the injunction to the Ninth Circuit. 

Defendants submitted regular progress reports per the modification of the injunction. On December 1, 2020, the defendants made an emergency request to suspend admission temporarily due to COVID-19. The court granted the order to suspend admission on December 2, 2020, and continued the grant extensions to the suspension until May 31, 2021. On May 17, 2021, Judge Mosman directed the parties to engage in a settlement conference. 

On August 16, 2021, the Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded the district court’s modification of the injunction in an unpublished decision. The Ninth Circuit held that the lower court abused its discretion by not tailoring its order to the factual circumstances because it modified the mandatory seven-day deadline without “imposing meaningful parameters to ensure that the interests of those patients are served to the greatest extent possible.” The district court could have instead adopted a sunset date for the new admissions period or proposed a timeline other than seven days. Even though the lower court was facing the unprecedented circumstances of the pandemic, the Ninth Circuit concluded that an open-ended modification of the injunction was “inconsistent with the urgent need to transfer individuals…out of jails.” 2021 WL 3615536.   

In light of the Ninth Circuit’s decision, the plaintiffs filed for a permanent injunction in the district court on August 18, 2021. On September 22, 2021, Judge Mosman denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a permanent injunction and instead modified the injunction. Judge Mosman ordered the defendants to submit progress reports to the court and the plaintiffs every three weeks with the admissions records and wait times for plaintiffs and submit weekly reports to plaintiff’s counsel with the admission list, a list of patients referred for admission, and whether OSH anticipated pausing admissions in the next two weeks. The order was set to expire December 3, 2021.  

On October 19, 2021, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s 2019 denial of attorneys’ fees. The plaintiffs were awarded the amount calculated in their motion minus the amount billed for settlement talks, which equaled $43,545. 

On December 10, 2021, the parties came to an interim agreement to appoint a neutral expert, Dr. Debra Pinals, and to consolidate this case with Bowman v. Matteucci (3:21-cv-01637), which was a case about mental health admissions. The purpose of the expert was to propose a short-term compliance plan and a global admissions protocol. Dr. Pinals submitted reports on January 30 and June 5, 2022. In those reports, Dr. Pinals recommended three actions to fix the admittance crisis at OSH. First, that the plaintiffs seek to limit patients who can be admitted to OSH to only those who need expedited admission. Second, that the plaintiffs ask for a decreased period of commitment at OSH on a sliding scale of 90 days to one year based on the seriousness of the crime that the patient was charged with. Third, that OSH must discharge the approximately 100 patients who had been committed for longer than the new maximum. 

On August 16, 2022, Judge Mosman granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs’ request to implement Dr. Pinals’s recommendations. Judge Mosman granted plaintiffs’ request to implement Dr. Pinals’s report more broadly, but he denied the implementation of the specific solutions discussed above because they violated state law. This was because all civilly committed patients, not just those on expedited requests, had a right to be admitted to OSH and the commitment could last up to three years.

On September 1, 2022, Judge Mosman modified the court’s adoption of the neutral expert’s report. Judge Mosman found that defendants were not in compliance with the permanent injunction, and ordered the defendants to comply with the full recommendations in Dr. Pinals’s report. If not terminated by the neutral expert, the injunction is currently scheduled to expire September 1, 2023. 

On September 28, 2022, Legacy Emanuel Hospital & Health Center, Providence Health & Services - Oregon, Legacy Health Systems, and PeaceHealth filed a motion to intervene, which was granted on October 13, 2022. Judge Mosman also further consolidated the case with Legacy Health System et al v. Allen (6:22-cv-01460-MO), which was a case about whether forcing acute care hospitals to civilly commit patients that OSH had a statutory duty to admit violated the patients’ Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.     

The intervenors filed a motion to modify or dissolve the injunction by arguing for a less intrusive alternative. On January 9, 2023, Judge Mosman denied the intervenors’ motion to modify or dissolve the injunction. First, the intervenors argued that the court should wait for the backlog caused by the pandemic to work its way through the system, but the court held that the admissions pauses took place too long ago and should have cleared the system, so the state needed the shorter discharge times. Second, the intervenors argued for increasing capacity by opening another facility, contracting with private providers, and increasing staff, but the court held that OSH had already taken many of these measures and it would be intrusive on the state’s policy making powers. Third, the intervenors proposed to tweak OSH’s admissions and discharge policies, but these changes were all addressed by the neutral expert. The intervenors also argued that returning patients to their communities too early would cause them to decompensate, which would directly affect the intervenors because they would have to admit the patients for civil commitments and it would cause additional constitutional violations. The intervenors wanted to change expedited admissions criteria for civil commitments and discharge criteria, but Judge Mosman held that the neutral expert’s recommendations had remedied these concerns. Overall, since the state acquiesced to the neutral expert by acknowledging that they could not solve the crisis, the court upheld the injunction to defer to OSH’s policy decision to change its policies in line with the neutral report, instead of forcing OSH to defer to the intervenors. 

On December 22, 2022, defendants filed a motion to dismiss, and litigation is ongoing on that motion.

Summary Authors

Matt Ramirez (6/16/2016)

Sean Drohan (6/16/2021)

Sophia Weaver (3/10/2023)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4366402/parties/oregon-advocacy-center-v-mink/


Judge(s)
Attorney for Plaintiff
Attorney for Defendant

Georges, Katherine Greene (Oregon)

Expert/Monitor/Master/Other

Boenisch, Christian F. (Oregon)

Carr, Thomas A. (Oregon)

Doyle, David (Oregon)

Garza, Keith M. (Oregon)

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

3:02-cv-00339

Docket

Aug. 18, 2003

Aug. 18, 2003

Docket
47

3:02-cv-00339

Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law

May 10, 2002

May 10, 2002

Order/Opinion

2002 WL 2002

51

3:02-cv-00339

Judgment [entered for Plaintiffs]

Oregon Advocacy Center et al v. Mink

May 15, 2002

May 15, 2002

Order/Opinion

2002 WL 2002

65

3:02-cv-00339

Order

May 28, 2002

May 28, 2002

Order/Opinion

3:02-cv-00339

Order

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

March 6, 2003

March 6, 2003

Order/Opinion

322 F.3d 322

77

3:02-cv-00339

ORDER [Granting Plaintiffs Motion for Attorney Fees]

Oregon Advocacy Center et al v. Mink

May 29, 2003

May 29, 2003

Order/Opinion
79

0:02-35530

Order

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Aug. 1, 2003

Aug. 1, 2003

Order/Opinion
85

3:02-cv-00339

Plaintiff Metropolitan Public Defender Services's Motion for Finding of Contempt, to Allow Discovery, and for Expedited Hearing

May 10, 2019

May 10, 2019

Pleading / Motion / Brief
147

3:02-cv-00339

Opinion and Order

Oregon Advocacy Center v. Allen

Oct. 28, 2019

Oct. 28, 2019

Order/Opinion

2019 WL 2019

167

3:02-cv-00339

Order of Modification to Injunction

May 13, 2020

May 13, 2020

Order/Opinion

2020 WL 2020

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4366402/oregon-advocacy-center-v-mink/

Last updated March 20, 2024, 3:04 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

Verified Complaint Filing Fee collected. Receipt #: 443045 issued. Filed by A.J. Madison, Metropolitan Public Defenders Incorporated, Oregon Advocacy Center against Stanley Mazur-Hart, Bobby Mink. (pvh, ) (Entered: 03/19/2002)

March 19, 2002

March 19, 2002

Clearinghouse
2

Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. Filed by all plaintiffs. (pvh, ) (Entered: 03/19/2002)

March 19, 2002

March 19, 2002

RECAP
3

Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Related document(s) 2 ) (pvh, ) (Entered: 03/19/2002)

March 19, 2002

March 19, 2002

PACER
4

Affidavit of Notification. Filed by all plaintiffs. (pvh, ) (Entered: 03/19/2002)

March 19, 2002

March 19, 2002

PACER
5

Discovery and Pretrial Scheduling Order and Notice of Case Assignment: Case assigned to the Honorable Garr M. King. Discovery to be completed by 7/18/2002. Joint Alternate Dispute Resolution Report due by 8/19/2002. Pretrial Order due by 8/19/2002. (pvh, ) (Entered: 03/19/2002)

March 19, 2002

March 19, 2002

PACER
6

CIVIL MINUTES:Record of Order setting hearing on plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order for Friday, March 22,2002 at 10:00AM. ORDER that defendant's opposition papers be filed by March 21,2002 by NOON. Response due by 3/21/2002. Hearing set for 3/22/2002 at 10:00 AM. (Related documents(s) 2 ) Ordered by Judge Ancer L.Haggerty. (md, ) (Entered: 03/20/2002)

March 19, 2002

March 19, 2002

PACER
7

Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Filed by Stanley Mazur-Hart, Bobby Mink. (Related motion(s) 2 ) (pvh, ) (Entered: 03/22/2002)

March 21, 2002

March 21, 2002

PACER
8

Affidavit of Stanley Mazur-Hart, Ph.D.. Filed by Stanley Mazur-Hart, Bobby Mink. (Related document(s) 7 ) (pvh, ) (Entered: 03/22/2002)

March 21, 2002

March 21, 2002

PACER
9

Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Filed by A.J. Madison, Metropolitan Public Defenders Incorporated, Oregon Advocacy Center. (Related document(s) 2 ) (pvh, ) (Entered: 03/22/2002)

March 21, 2002

March 21, 2002

PACER
10

CIVIL MINUTES:Record of time set for hearing on Plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order. After counsel for defendant stated that she had some concerns that one of the plaintiffs (Metropolitan Defenders Office) was a former employer of Judge Haggerty, Judge Haggerty recused himself from this hearing. ORDER resetting thehearing on plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order (2) before Judge Owen Panner at 2:00PM, Monday, March 25,2002. (Related documents(s) 2 ) Ordered by Judge Ancer L.Haggerty. Counsel Present for Plaintiff: Kathy Wilde. Counsel Present for Defendant: Kathryn Georges. Court Reporter: Nancy Walker. (md, ) (Entered: 03/22/2002)

March 22, 2002

March 22, 2002

PACER
11

Affidavit of Stanley Mazur-Hart, Ph.D. Filed by Stanley Mazur-Hart. (pvh, ) (Entered: 03/22/2002)

March 22, 2002

March 22, 2002

PACER
12

Declaration of Barry Engle. Filed by Oregon Advocacy Center. (pvh, ) (Entered: 04/01/2002)

March 22, 2002

March 22, 2002

PACER
13

Supplemental Affidavit of Leslie Martinez. Filed by all defendants. (pvh, ) (Entered: 04/01/2002)

March 25, 2002

March 25, 2002

PACER
16

CIVIL MINUTES:Record of Hearing: Plaintiffs Motion for Temporary Restraining Order & Preliminary Injunction is Denied; Court Trial set for 4/8/2002 at 02:00PM in Portland. (Related documents(s) 2 ) Ordered by Judge Owen M. Panner. Court Reporter: Dennis Apodaca. (Kirk, ) (Entered: 04/02/2002)

March 25, 2002

March 25, 2002

PACER
17

Order Establishing Trial Date & Procedures. Signed 3/25/02 by Judge Owen M. Panner. (Kirk, ) (Entered: 04/02/2002)

March 26, 2002

March 26, 2002

PACER
14

Motion for Protective Order . (Expedited Decision requested). Filed by all defendants. (pvh, ) (Entered: 04/01/2002)

March 29, 2002

March 29, 2002

PACER
18

ORDER:Record of Telephone Conference: Order Denying Defendants Motion for a Protective Order (Related Doc # 14 ) except as to the deposition of Dr. Steven Fritz. by Judge Owen M. Panner. (Kirk, ) (Entered: 04/02/2002)

March 29, 2002

March 29, 2002

PACER
15

Order Requiring the Release of Confidential Psychiatric Records & Information. Signed 4/1/02 by Judge James A. Redden. (Kirk, ) (Entered: 04/01/2002)

April 1, 2002

April 1, 2002

PACER
19

Motion for Order Requiring the Release of Confidential Psychiatric Records & Information. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Kirk, ) (Entered: 04/02/2002)

April 1, 2002

April 1, 2002

PACER
20

Answer to Complaint & Affirmative Defenses (Related Doc # 1 ). Filed by all defendants. (Kirk, ) (Entered: 04/04/2002)

April 3, 2002

April 3, 2002

PACER
21

Motion in limine. Filed by all defendants. (Kirk, ) (Entered: 04/04/2002)

April 3, 2002

April 3, 2002

PACER
22

Trial Brief Filed by all defendants. (Kirk, ) (Entered: 04/04/2002)

April 3, 2002

April 3, 2002

PACER
23

Affidavit of Leslie Martinez. Filed by all defendants. (Kirk, ) (Entered: 04/04/2002)

April 3, 2002

April 3, 2002

PACER
24

Affidavit of John Keogh. Filed by all defendants. (Kirk, ) (Entered: 04/04/2002)

April 3, 2002

April 3, 2002

PACER
25

Affidavit of Linda Brandeberry. Filed by all defendants. (Kirk, ) (Entered: 04/04/2002)

April 3, 2002

April 3, 2002

PACER
26

Witness List. Filed by all defendants. (Kirk, ) (Entered: 04/04/2002)

April 3, 2002

April 3, 2002

PACER
27

Affidavit of Stanley Mazur-Hart, PhD. Filed by all defendants. (Kirk, ) (Entered: 04/04/2002)

April 3, 2002

April 3, 2002

PACER
28

Exhibit List. Filed by all defendants. (Kirk, ) (Entered: 04/04/2002)

April 3, 2002

April 3, 2002

PACER
29

Transcript of TRO Hearing held on 3/25/02 before Judge Owen M. Panner. Court Reporter: Dennis W. Apodaca. (Kirk, ) (Entered: 04/05/2002)

April 4, 2002

April 4, 2002

RECAP
30

Response to Issues Raised in Defendants Trial Brief. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Related document(s) 22 ) (Kirk, ) (Entered: 04/09/2002)

April 5, 2002

April 5, 2002

PACER
31

Supplemental Exhibit List. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Kirk, ) (Entered: 04/09/2002)

April 5, 2002

April 5, 2002

PACER
32

Supplemental Witness Statement. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Kirk, ) (Entered: 04/09/2002)

April 5, 2002

April 5, 2002

PACER
33

Objection(s) to Testimony of Plaintiffs Witnesses. Filed by all defendants. (Kirk, ) (Entered: 04/10/2002)

April 8, 2002

April 8, 2002

PACER
34

Objection(s) to Plaintiffs Exhibits. Filed by all defendants. (Kirk, ) (Entered: 04/10/2002)

April 8, 2002

April 8, 2002

PACER
35

Defendants Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law (Kirk, ) (Entered: 04/10/2002)

April 8, 2002

April 8, 2002

PACER
36

Motion for Protective Order. Filed by all defendants. (Kirk, ) (Entered: 04/10/2002)

April 8, 2002

April 8, 2002

PACER
37

CIVIL MINUTES: Record of first day of court trial: Evidence adduced; Findings & Conclusions to Follow. Defendants Motions in Limine are Denied. Plaintiffs & Defendants exhibits received. (Related documents(s) 21 ) Ordered by Judge Owen M. Panner. Court Reporter: Dennis Grube. (Kirk, ) (Entered: 04/10/2002)

April 8, 2002

April 8, 2002

PACER
38

Memorandum in Support of Motion for Protective Order. Filed by all defendants. (Related document(s) 36 ) (Kirk, ) (Entered: 04/10/2002)

April 8, 2002

April 8, 2002

PACER
39

Brief Plaintiffs Post-Trial Brief. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Kirk, ) (Entered: 04/12/2002)

April 12, 2002

April 12, 2002

PACER
42

Brief Post-Trial Brief. Filed by all defendants. (Kirk, ) (Entered: 04/18/2002)

April 15, 2002

April 15, 2002

PACER
40

Response to Defendants Post-Trial Brief. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Kirk, ) (Entered: 04/16/2002)

April 16, 2002

April 16, 2002

PACER
41

Notice of Case Reassignment by Judge Garr M. King: Case reassigned from Garr M. King to Owen M. Panner. (pvh, ) (Entered: 04/17/2002)

April 17, 2002

April 17, 2002

PACER
44

Response to Plaintiffs Post-Trial Brief. Filed by all defendants. (Kirk, ) (Entered: 04/18/2002)

April 17, 2002

April 17, 2002

PACER
43

Stipulated Protective Order: Signed 4/16/02 by Judge Owen M. Panner. (Kirk, ) (Entered: 04/18/2002)

April 18, 2002

April 18, 2002

PACER
45

Supplemental Brief Supplemental Post-Trial Brief. Filed by all defendants. (Kirk, ) (Entered: 05/06/2002)

May 3, 2002

May 3, 2002

PACER
46

Supplemental Brief on the Issue of Remedy. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Kirk, ) (Entered: 05/13/2002)

May 9, 2002

May 9, 2002

PACER
47

Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law: Signed 5/9/02 by Judge Owen M.Panner. (See formal 14-Page document) (Kirk, ) (Entered: 05/13/2002)

May 10, 2002

May 10, 2002

Clearinghouse
48

Notice of Appeal to USCA from Findings of Fact & Conclusion of Law # 47 entered on 5/13/02 Filing fee collected. Receipt # 444144 issued.. Filed by all defendants. Transcript due by 7/15/2002. (Related document(s) 47 ) (Kirk, ) (Entered: 05/15/2002)

May 14, 2002

May 14, 2002

PACER
49

Motion for Stay Judgment & Injunction Pending Appeal (Expedited Consideration Requested). Filed by all defendants. (Kirk, ) (Entered: 05/15/2002)

May 14, 2002

May 14, 2002

PACER
50

Memorandum in Support of Motion for a Stay of Judgment & Injunction Pending Appeal. Filed by all defendants. (Related document(s) 49 ) (Kirk, ) (Entered: 05/15/2002)

May 14, 2002

May 14, 2002

PACER
51

Judgment:Based on this court's findings of fact & conclusions of law, judgment is entered for Plaintiffs. This court retains continuing jurisdiction to enforce the injunction entered. Signed 5/15/02 by Judge Owen M. Panner. (See formal 2-Page Judgment) (Kirk, ) (Entered: 05/16/2002)

May 15, 2002

May 15, 2002

Clearinghouse
52

Motion for Attorney Fees & Costs. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Kirk, ) (Entered: 05/16/2002)

May 15, 2002

May 15, 2002

PACER
53

Memorandum in Support of Motion for an Award of Fees. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Related document(s) 52 ) (Kirk, ) (Entered: 05/16/2002)

May 15, 2002

May 15, 2002

PACER
54

Declaration of Kathleeen L. Wilde in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for An Award of Attorneys Fees. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Related document(s) 52 ) (Kirk, ) (Entered: 05/16/2002)

May 15, 2002

May 15, 2002

PACER
55

Response to Plaintiffs Supplemental Brief on the Issue of Remedy. Filed by all defendants. (Kirk, ) (Entered: 05/16/2002)

May 15, 2002

May 15, 2002

PACER
57

Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants Motion for A Stay Pending Appeal (Document filed as a Brief). Filed by all plaintiffs. (Related motion(s) 49 ) (Kirk, ) (Entered: 05/20/2002)

May 16, 2002

May 16, 2002

PACER
58

Motion for Clarification & Modify Injunction. Filed by all defendants. (Kirk, ) (Entered: 05/20/2002)

May 16, 2002

May 16, 2002

PACER
56

Reply to Motion in Support of Motion to Stay Judgment & Injunction Pending Appeal. Filed by all defendants. (Related motion(s) 49 ) (Kirk, ) (Entered: 05/20/2002)

May 17, 2002

May 17, 2002

PACER
59

Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants Motion to Clarify & Modify Injunction. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Related motion(s) 58 ) (Kirk, ) (Entered: 05/20/2002)

May 17, 2002

May 17, 2002

PACER
60

Amended Reply In Support Of Motion To Stay Judgment And Injunction Pending Appeal. Filed by all defendants. (Related document(s) 49 ) (tomg, ) (Entered: 05/22/2002)

May 20, 2002

May 20, 2002

PACER
61

Supplemental Brief In Support Of Motion To Stay. Filed by all defendants. (Related document(s) 49 ) (tomg, ) (Entered: 05/22/2002)

May 20, 2002

May 20, 2002

PACER
62

Affidavit of Stanley Mazur-Hart, PH.D. In Support of Defendants' Motion To Stay Judgment And Injunction Pending Appeal. Filed by all defendants. (Related document(s) 49 ) (tomg, ) (Entered: 05/22/2002)

May 21, 2002

May 21, 2002

PACER
63

Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion for an Award of Attorneys Fees. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Related document(s) 52 ) (Kirk, ) (Entered: 05/29/2002)

May 23, 2002

May 23, 2002

PACER
64

Response to Discovery Motion Response to Defendants Supplemental Briefs in Support of Motion for a Stay. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Related motion(s) 49 ) (Kirk, ) (Entered: 05/29/2002)

May 24, 2002

May 24, 2002

PACER
65

ORDER:Order: Denying Defendants Motion for a Stay (Related Doc # 49 & Motion for Clarification (Related Doc # 58 ). (See formal 4-Page Order) Signed on 5/27/02 by Judge Owen M. Panner. (Kirk, ) (Entered: 05/29/2002)

May 28, 2002

May 28, 2002

Clearinghouse
66

Amended Notice of Appeal to USCA from the Judgment # 51 entered on 5/16/02. Filed by Bobby Mink. Transcript due by 7/29/2002. (Related document(s) 51 ) (Kirk, ) (Entered: 06/03/2002)

May 30, 2002

May 30, 2002

PACER

Notification of Appeal Sent

June 3, 2002

June 3, 2002

PACER

Notification of Amended Appeal mailed to USCA for the Ninth Circuit and to counsel along with copy of appealed document and docket sheet. (FRAP 3(d)((3)) USDC Notice of Appeal Doc. # 51, 66 . (CADS included) (Related document(s) 51, 66 ) (Kirk, )

June 3, 2002

June 3, 2002

PACER
67

Docket number 02-35530 assigned by the United States Court of Appeals. USDC Notice of Appeal Doc. # 48 .. (Related document(s) 48 ) (Kirk, ) (Entered: 06/04/2002)

June 3, 2002

June 3, 2002

PACER
68

Time Schedule Order from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals: Appellant to file transcript order form by 6/13/02; Transcripts to be filed by 7/15/02; Appellants opening bried is due 8/30/02; Appellees brief is due 9/30/02. USDC Notice of Appeal Doc. # 48 and USCA #02-35530... Transcript due by 7/15/2002. (Related document(s) 48 ) (Kirk, ) (Entered: 06/04/2002)

June 3, 2002

June 3, 2002

PACER
69

Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Motions. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Kirk, ) (Entered: 06/10/2002)

June 3, 2002

June 3, 2002

PACER
70

Memorandum in Opposition Objections to Plaintiffs Motion for an Award of Fees. Filed by all defendants. (Related motion(s) 52 ) (Kirk, ) (Entered: 06/10/2002)

June 3, 2002

June 3, 2002

PACER
71

Transcript Ordering form for Transcript(s) of Proceedings held on 4/8/02 & 5/25/02.. Filed by all defendants. (Kirk, ) (Entered: 06/21/2002)

June 14, 2002

June 14, 2002

PACER
72

Docket number 02-35530 assigned by the United States Court of Appeals. USDC Amended Notice of Appeal Doc. # 66 .. (Related document(s) 66 ) (Kirk, ) (Entered: 06/25/2002)

June 24, 2002

June 24, 2002

PACER
73

Second Amended Notice of Appeal to USCA from order # 48, 66 entered on 5/28/02. Filed by all defendants. Transcript due by 8/26/2002. (Related document(s) 48, 66 ) (Kirk, ) (Entered: 07/10/2002)

June 27, 2002

June 27, 2002

PACER

Notification of Appeal Sent

July 15, 2002

July 15, 2002

PACER

Notification of Second Amended Notice of Appeal mailed to USCA for the Ninth Circuit and to counsel along with copy of appealed document and docket sheet. (FRAP 3(d)((3)) USDC Notice of Appeal Doc. # 66, 73, 48 .. (Related document(s) 66, 73, 48 ) (Kirk, )

July 15, 2002

July 15, 2002

PACER

Appeal Record Sent to USCA

July 31, 2002

July 31, 2002

PACER

Clerks Record on Appeal transmitted to USCA. USDC Notice of Appeal Doc. # 66, 73, 48 and USCA # 02-35530. 2 Original volumes of case file & 1 transcript sent. (Related document(s) 66, 73, 48 ) (Kirk, )

July 31, 2002

July 31, 2002

PACER
74

Transcript of Proceedings held on 4/8/02 (Court Trial) before Judge Owen M. Panner. Court Reporter: Dennis R. Grube. (Kirk, ) (Entered: 08/02/2002)

Aug. 2, 2002

Aug. 2, 2002

PACER
75

Certificate of Record transmitted to USCA. USDC Notice of Appeal Doc. # 73, 48 and USCA # 02-35550. (fh, ) (Entered: 12/16/2002)

Dec. 16, 2002

Dec. 16, 2002

PACER
76

Mandate from US Court of Appeals: The Decision of the District Court is AFFIRMED USDC Notice of Appeal Doc. # 66, 48 and USCA # 02-35530. (fh, ) (Entered: 04/16/2003)

April 1, 2003

April 1, 2003

PACER

Appeal Record Returned

May 14, 2003

May 14, 2003

PACER

Clerks Record on Appeal( orig clerks file 2 vols., 1 transcript #29) returned from USCA. USDC Notice of Appeal Doc. # [], 66, 48 and USCA # 02-35530.. . (fh, )

May 14, 2003

May 14, 2003

PACER
77

ORDER:Order: Granting Plaintiffs Motion for Attorney Fees (Related Doc # 52 ); Plaintiffs are awarded $53,062.50 in attorney fees & $600.86 in costs. Signed on 5/29/03 by Judge Owen M. Panner. (Kirk, ) (Entered: 05/30/2003)

May 29, 2003

May 29, 2003

Clearinghouse
78

Satisfaction of Judgment: $53,663.36 has been paid to plaintiffs. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Related document(s) 51 ) (Kirk, ) (Entered: 07/11/2003)

July 9, 2003

July 9, 2003

PACER
79

Order from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals: Appellees unopposed motion for attorneys fees is granted. A certified copy of this order sent to the districtcourt shall serve to amend this courts mandate. USDC Notice of Appeal Doc. # 76, 48 and USCA #02-35530.. . (fh, ) (Entered: 08/06/2003)

Aug. 1, 2003

Aug. 1, 2003

PACER
80

Satisfaction of Judgment: Attorneys fees in the amount of $31,252.50. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Related document(s) 51 ) (Kirk, ) (Entered: 08/19/2003)

Aug. 15, 2003

Aug. 15, 2003

PACER
81

ORDER:Record of Order: Mooting Motion for Extension of Time (Related Doc # 69 ) by Judge Owen M. Panner. (Kirk, ) (Entered: 08/19/2003)

Aug. 18, 2003

Aug. 18, 2003

PACER
82

Notice of Attorney Substitution:Attorney Jesse Merrithew is substituted as counsel of record in place of Attorney Kathleen L. Wilde Filed by Metropolitan Public Defenders Incorporated. (Merrithew, Jesse) (Entered: 05/09/2019)

May 9, 2019

May 9, 2019

PACER
83

Notice of Appearance of Thomas Stenson appearing on behalf of Oregon Advocacy Center Filed by on behalf of Oregon Advocacy Center. (Stenson, Thomas) (Entered: 05/09/2019)

May 9, 2019

May 9, 2019

PACER
84

Unopposed Motion to Substitute a Party . Filed by Metropolitan Public Defenders Incorporated. (Merrithew, Jesse) (Entered: 05/10/2019)

May 10, 2019

May 10, 2019

PACER
85

Motion for Order to Show Cause for Finding of Contempt, and for Discovery. Oral Argument requested.Expedited Hearing requested. Filed by Metropolitan Public Defenders Incorporated. (Merrithew, Jesse) (Entered: 05/10/2019)

May 10, 2019

May 10, 2019

Clearinghouse
86

Declaration of Carl Macpherson . Filed by Metropolitan Public Defenders Incorporated. (Related document(s): Motion for Order to Show Cause 85 .) (Merrithew, Jesse) (Entered: 05/10/2019)

May 10, 2019

May 10, 2019

PACER
87

Declaration of Jesse Merrithew . Filed by Metropolitan Public Defenders Incorporated. (Related document(s): Motion for Order to Show Cause 85 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (Merrithew, Jesse) (Entered: 05/10/2019)

May 10, 2019

May 10, 2019

PACER
88

Notice of Association of Attorney Kathleen L. Wilde. Filed by Oregon Advocacy Center. (Stenson, Thomas) Modified to correct appearing attorney name on 5/22/2019 (sss). (Entered: 05/14/2019)

May 14, 2019

May 14, 2019

PACER
89

Notice of Association of Attorney Thomas Stenson,Emily R. Cooper for Oregon Advocacy Center. Filed by Oregon Advocacy Center. (Stenson, Thomas) (Entered: 05/14/2019)

May 14, 2019

May 14, 2019

PACER
90

Notice of Association of Attorney Thomas Stenson,Sarah Dora Radcliffe for Oregon Advocacy Center. Filed by Oregon Advocacy Center. (Stenson, Thomas) (Entered: 05/14/2019)

May 14, 2019

May 14, 2019

PACER
91

Motion for Order to Show Cause . Oral Argument requested.Expedited Hearing requested. Filed by Oregon Advocacy Center. (Stenson, Thomas) (Entered: 05/14/2019)

May 14, 2019

May 14, 2019

RECAP
92

Declaration of Sarah Radcliffe . Filed by Oregon Advocacy Center. (Related document(s): Motion for Order to Show Cause 85, Motion for Order to Show Cause 91 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A- April Letter, # 2 Exhibit B - May 7 Letter, # 3 Exhibit C - May 9 Letter, # 4 Exhibit D - Recent 370 Status) (Stenson, Thomas) (Entered: 05/14/2019)

May 14, 2019

May 14, 2019

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory: Oregon

Case Type(s):

Mental Health (Facility)

Key Dates

Filing Date: March 19, 2002

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Oregon Advocacy Center, a non-profit representing people with mental illness, specifically those found unable to stand trial, the Metropolitan Public Defender Services, Inc., a non-profit representing indigent criminal defendants, and a criminal patient who waited 23 days before admittance to a proper mental health treatment facility.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Non-profit NON-religious organization

Attorney Organizations:

NDRN/Protection & Advocacy Organizations

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

Oregon Department of Human Services, State

Defendant Type(s):

Jurisdiction-wide

Hospital/Health Department

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness (PAIMI) Act, 42 U.S.C. § 10801

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Monetary Relief

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Non-settlement Outcome

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Attorneys fees

Source of Relief:

Litigation

Amount Defendant Pays: $128,460.86

Order Duration: 2002 - None

Content of Injunction:

Preliminary relief denied

Implement complaint/dispute resolution process

Monitoring

Goals (e.g., for hiring, admissions)

Issues

General:

Conditions of confinement

Rehabilitation

Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:

Commitment procedure

Placement in mental health facilities

Disability and Disability Rights:

Mental impairment

P&A Associational Standing

Mental Illness, Unspecified

Medical/Mental Health:

Mental health care, general

Mental health care, unspecified

Type of Facility:

Government-run