On September 9, 2014, Disability Rights Florida filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. This suit was brought against the Florida Department of Corrections (FDC) and Wexford Health Sources, an FDC contractor, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, and the Rehabilitation Act. The plaintiff, represented by private and in-house counsel as well as Florida Legal Services, asked the court for injunctive and declaratory relief. The plaintiff alleged that abuse and discrimination against inmates with mental illnesses as well as inadequate care for such inmates violated their Eighth Amendment rights. Specifically, the plaintiff claimed that officials at Dade Correctional Institution (Dade CI) subjected inmates with serious mental illness in their inpatient mental health units to physical beatings, verbal harassment, deprivation of food, and torture. The plaintiff claimed that FDC was on notice of these conditions and failed to investigate the allegations of abuse and adequately punish those responsible.

Disability Rights Florida, the plaintiff, is a federally-funded protection and advocacy system responsible for protecting the rights of individuals with mental illness in the state. In this lawsuit, it asked for several forms of relief to protect prisoners with mental illnesses. First, the plaintiff requested that the court declare the defendants' conduct unlawful and unconstitutional. Second, the plaintiff requested an injunction requiring FDC to cease all actions that violated the constitutional and statutory rights of mentally ill inmates at the Dade CI inpatient unit, take immediate action to investigate and stop the ongoing abuse of such inmates, train and supervise officers assigned to the unit, develop a system of periodic independent oversight of the unit, and take immediate steps to ensure timely investigations of abuse upon these inmates. Third, the plaintiff requested an injunction requiring Wexford to mandate that its employees report allegations of abuse and ensure that inmates with mental illness receive adequate care. Fourth and finally, the plaintiff requested an injunction requiring FDC to stop discriminating against inmates in the Dade CI inpatient unit on the basis of disability.

At around the same time, the personal representative of the estate and survivors of a mentally ill FDC prisoner who died after being forced to shower in scalding water for hours sued FDC and several FDC guards and prison officials. See Chapman v. Florida Department of Corrections, 1:14-cv-24140-RNS. The representative alleged that the defendants violated the ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and Eighth Amendment and sought damages. On November 14, 2014, the court issued an order consolidating Chapman with this case.

On April 10, 2015, Disability Rights Florida and the defendants submitted a private settlement agreement that Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. approved on April 14, 2015. Among the terms of the settlement agreement:

• The state agreed to provide Crisis Intervention Training to all staff at Dade CI.
• The state would provide specialized training for correctional officers who work directly with inmates with mental illnesses.
• The state agreed to upgrade its video monitoring system and begin a pilot program for an audio monitoring system.
• The state agreed to try to provide full staffing at Dade CI.
• An additional Assistant Warden position will be created at Dade CI to oversee issues involving individuals with mental illnesses.
• A Mental Health Ombudsman position will be created at FDC's central office and at the Region III office. These positions are intended lead and supervise mental health care.
• The state agreed to install televisions in the common areas of the inpatient units at Dade CI for both therapeutic and recreational activities.
• A team of psychiatrists and security experts will visit Dade CI and will review records, observe therapeutic and non-therapeutic activities, and evaluate the safeguards against abuse and neglect at the facility. The experts will then make recommendations for any needed changes and improvements.

In addition, Wexford agreed to implement all of these provisions as well as provide training, hire additional behavioral health staff, and conduct internal and external audits of its program. The parties agreed to monitor compliance with the agreement through May of 2017. The court was to retain jurisdiction over the matter for 6 months, and during that time, the plaintiff could seek to reopen the case and resume the litigation if the state’s implementation of the agreement was systematically deficient.

Meanwhile, on February 1, 2016, the plaintiff in Chapman moved to reopen the case, lift the stay on litigation entered with the settlement agreement, and start discovery because the settlement had no bearing on the issues addressed in its complaint. The court found that, because the last stay applicable to the consolidated actions expired on March 16, 2015, the case related to the estate should have automatically reopened on that date. Judge Scola ordered the matter reopened and ordered defendants to respond to the complaint by April 4, 2016.

On April 12, the defendant answered plaintiff's complaint, raising several affirmative defenses, including failure to state a cause of action, failure to state a claim, and that the FDC was entitled to sovereign immunity. On May 16, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The FDC and Dade CI’s warden subsequently filed motions to dismiss on July 1, 2016. Meanwhile, discovery commenced.

On October 28, 2016, Judge Scola granted the FDC's motion to dismiss while denying that of Dade CI’s warden. As to the warden, the court found that the plaintiffs had stated a plausible claim of supervisory liability based on the warden's alleged knowledge of widespread abuse of mentally ill inmates at Dade CI. As to the FDC, the court dismissed the ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims brought on behalf of the decedent's surviving family members for lack of standing, but upheld the same claims as brought by his estate.

Discovery continued and, after fruitless mediation, a trial was scheduled for March 2018.

Meanwhile, Disability Rights Florida identified deficiencies in the defendants' compliance with the settlement agreement. On May 19, 2017, it and FDC moved to extend the deadline by six months so that FDC could implement reforms, including hiring a different mental healthcare provider. At the end of the six-month extension, both parties asked the court to dismiss that portion of the consolidated case with prejudice. Judge Scola did so on November 8, 2017, but clarified that the dismissal did not affect the ongoing litigation between the estate and the FDC defendants. The court also retained jurisdiction to resolve any disputes over attorneys' fees that might emerge. There is no evidence in the docket that any attorneys' fees disputes with respect to the Disability Rights Florida litigation reached the court.

However, on January 17, 2018, the remaining parties notified the court that they had settled the case privately and in full. The court ordered the case administratively closed that day. While the Clearinghouse is not aware of the terms of the new settlement agreement, subsequent litigation revealed that it included $4.5 million in monetary damages.

On May 24, 2018, the court entered an order requiring the plaintiffs to file a stipulation of dismissal by July 23, 2018. But infighting soon broke out within the plaintiffs’ camp. One of their lawyers tried to put a charging lien on the pool of settlement funds, and the estate of one of the decedent’s relatives attempted to intervene to claim some of the proceeds. The court declined to address these new disputes and, after the lawyer voluntarily withdrew an Eleventh Circuit appeal on the lien issue, approved the settlement on October 26.

On November 21, 2018, the parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal of the action. The same day, Judge Scola ordered the dismissal of the case and stated that the court reserves jurisdiction to enforce the parties' settlement agreement. As of September 2019, the court has taken no action to enforce the settlement agreement.

Spencer Klein - 02/08/2015
Lauren Latterell Powell - 03/18/2018
Jake Parker - 07/05/2018


compress summary