University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Michigan Protection & Advocacy Service, Inc. v. Caruso PC-MI-0035
Docket / Court 5:05-cv-00128 ( W.D. Mich. )
State/Territory Michigan
Case Type(s) Prison Conditions
Case Summary
On September 14, 2005, the Michigan Protection and Advocacy Service (MPAS) filed this complaint on behalf of youths aged 22 and younger with mental illnesses incarcerated in the Michigan Youth Correctional Facility (MYCF). The MYCF, a maximum security prison for adolescent males convicted as adults, ... read more >
On September 14, 2005, the Michigan Protection and Advocacy Service (MPAS) filed this complaint on behalf of youths aged 22 and younger with mental illnesses incarcerated in the Michigan Youth Correctional Facility (MYCF). The MYCF, a maximum security prison for adolescent males convicted as adults, was privately operated by GEO Group, Inc. In October of 2005, approximately two weeks after the complaint was filed, the MYCF facility was closed and all the incarcerated youths were moved to other Michigan Department of Correction (MDOC) facilities. MPAS, however, claimed all the illegal conditions of confinement described below continued to exist.

The complaint listed three areas of concern.

First, because the MYC facility had the highest security level, there were fewer educational and rehabilitation programs available. After MYCF closed, MPAS claimed that the youths with mental illnesses still had limited access to appropriate educational programs, in violation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 20 U.S.C. § 1401.

Second, MPAS also claimed that the MDOC screening and treatment procedures for youths with mental illnesses were inadequate. MPAS argued that youths with diagnosed mental illnesses were instead classified as malingering and manipulative and were more likely to be placed in disciplinary and administrative segregation and to spend longer amounts of time there than the other youths in violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 41 U.S.C. § 12132 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (504), 29 U.S.C. § 794.

Finally, MPAS claimed that the social and sensory deprivation conditions of isolation exacerbated existing mental illnesses, and sometimes caused the development of mental illnesses in youths who were previously healthy. They claimed that this violated the youths' Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment. Lastly MPAS contends that MDOC violated the youths' Fourteenth Amendment due process rights by imposing punishments without determining if they should be held accountable for their actions.

MPAS sought declaratory judgment and permanent injunction to resolve the above issues.

Starting in September of 2006, the the parties began developing an action plan based on a series of settlement talks mediated by Chief Judge Paul L. Maloney and in July of 2008 submitted a implementation plan to the Court which was not made public.

As understood from the stipulation for stay document, one aspect of the plan was the implementation of monitors in 2007 to oversee the defendant’s resolution of the issues raised in the plaintiff’s complaint. These included better screening procedures to identify prisoners with mental illnesses, not placing prisoners in administrative segregation or placing them there for shorter periods, and training the staff on mental illnesses.

In October, 2008, the Court granted the defendant's partial motion for summary judgment related to a question of providing special education. Federal law required MDOC to provide special education services to prisoners until they reached the age of 22. The Court granted the partial motion for summary judgment to clarify that the Michigan Mandatory Special Education Act, which would have extended access to special education until the age of 27, did not apply to prisoners because MDOC was not a "public agency" as understood by the Act.

The matter was stayed until August 2009, then again until December 2010, and finally until June 2011 to allow time to implement the changes.

In June, 2011, both parties agreed that the complaint should be dismissed as the issues had been resolved.

Amanda Kenner - 02/21/2017


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
Defendant-type
Corrections
Disability
Mental impairment
Discrimination-basis
Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)
General
Administrative segregation
Disciplinary segregation
Education
Juveniles
Solitary confinement/Supermax (conditions or process)
Youth / Adult separation
Medical/Mental Health
Mental health care, general
Self-injurious behaviors
Suicide prevention
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Type of Facility
Government-run
Non-government for profit
Causes of Action 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Indv. w/ Disab. Educ. Act (IDEA), Educ. of All Handcpd. Children Act , 20 U.S.C. § 1400
Defendant(s) Patricia L. Caruso
Plaintiff Description Michigan Protection and Advocacy Service, a private non-profit with statutory authority to investigate and protect the rights of youths with disabilities or mental illnesses.
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
Prevailing Party Mixed
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Settlement
Form of Settlement Private Settlement Agreement
Case Closing Year 2011
Case Ongoing No
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
  Civil Rights Injunctions Over Time: A Case Study of Jail and Prison Court Orders
N.Y.U. Law Review
Date: May 2006
By: Margo Schlanger (Washington University Faculty)
Citation: 81 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 550 (2006)
[ Detail ] [ PDF ] [ External Link ]

  Judicial Policy Making and the Modern State: How the Courts Reformed America's Prisons
Book
Date: Jan. 1, 1998
By: Malcolm M. Feeley & Edward Rubin (UC Berkeley Boalt Hall School of Law & Vanderbilt School of Law Faculty Faculty)
Citation: (1998)
[ Detail ]

Docket(s)
5:05-cv-128 (W.D. Mich.)
PC-MI-0035-9000.pdf | Detail
Date: 04/03/2014
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief [ECF# 1]
PC-MI-0035-0001.pdf | Detail
Date: 09/14/2005
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [Granting and Denying in Part Motion for Partial Summary Judgment] [ECF# 45] (W.D. Mich.)
PC-MI-0035-0002.pdf | Detail
Date: 04/10/2006
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Settlement Conference Report of Joel Dvoskin, Ph.D in Accordance with Order of September 22, 1996 [ECF# 117]
PC-MI-0035-0003.pdf | Detail
Date: 11/03/2006
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Third Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief [ECF# 141]
PC-MI-0035-0004.pdf | Detail
Date: 11/20/2006
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Order to Show Cause [ECF# 155]
PC-MI-0035-0005.pdf | Detail
Date: 02/01/2007
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Report and Recommendation [ECF# 225]
PC-MI-0035-0006.pdf | Detail
Date: 07/29/2008
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Opinion and Order [Adopting the R&R without Objection; Staying the Case for One Year, Except the Pending Cross-Motions for Partial Summary Judgment] [ECF# 226] (2008 WL 3834019) (W.D. Mich.)
PC-MI-0035-0007.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 08/12/2008
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Opinion and Order [Granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment to Defendant on State-Law Claim; Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment on State-Law Claim] [ECF# 227] (581 F.Supp.2d 847) (W.D. Mich.)
PC-MI-0035-0008.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 10/08/2008
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Stipulation for Stay [ECF# 231]
PC-MI-0035-0009.pdf | Detail
Date: 12/09/2009
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Joint Motion for Stay [ECF# 235]
PC-MI-0035-0010.pdf | Detail
Date: 11/10/2010
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Stipulation and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice [ECF# 238]
PC-MI-0035-0011.pdf | Detail
Date: 06/17/2011
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Stipulation and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice [ECF# 248] (W.D. Mich.)
PC-MI-0035-0012.pdf | Detail
Date: 09/12/2011
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Carmody, Ellen S. (W.D. Mich.) [Magistrate]
PC-MI-0035-0006
Enslen, Richard Alan (W.D. Mich.)
PC-MI-0035-0002 | PC-MI-0035-0003
Maloney, Paul Lewis (W.D. Mich.)
PC-MI-0035-0007 | PC-MI-0035-0008 | PC-MI-0035-0012 | PC-MI-0035-9000
Plaintiff's Lawyers Cecil, Thomas G. (Michigan)
PC-MI-0035-9000
Cody, Mark A. (Michigan)
PC-MI-0035-0001 | PC-MI-0035-0003 | PC-MI-0035-0004 | PC-MI-0035-0005 | PC-MI-0035-0009 | PC-MI-0035-0010 | PC-MI-0035-0011 | PC-MI-0035-0012 | PC-MI-0035-9000
Fleischner, Robert D. (Massachusetts)
PC-MI-0035-0001 | PC-MI-0035-0004 | PC-MI-0035-0009 | PC-MI-0035-0010 | PC-MI-0035-0011 | PC-MI-0035-0012 | PC-MI-0035-9000
Hickox, Stacy Ann (Michigan)
PC-MI-0035-0001 | PC-MI-0035-0003 | PC-MI-0035-0004 | PC-MI-0035-0005 | PC-MI-0035-9000
Moss, Kary L. (Michigan)
PC-MI-0035-0001
Singer, Abraham (Michigan)
PC-MI-0035-9000
Steinberg, Michael J. (Michigan)
PC-MI-0035-0001 | PC-MI-0035-0004 | PC-MI-0035-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Friedman, Leo H. (Michigan)
PC-MI-0035-0003 | PC-MI-0035-0005 | PC-MI-0035-9000
Govorchin, A. Peter (Michigan)
PC-MI-0035-0009 | PC-MI-0035-0010 | PC-MI-0035-0011 | PC-MI-0035-0012 | PC-MI-0035-9000
Morris, William R. (Michigan)
PC-MI-0035-9000
Olivieri, Linda M. (Michigan)
PC-MI-0035-0003 | PC-MI-0035-0005 | PC-MI-0035-0010 | PC-MI-0035-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -