Disability Rights Florida ("DRF"), brought this suit against the Florida Department of Corrections ("FDOC") in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida on January 26, 2016. The plaintiff, a federally designated protection and advocacy agency for the State of Florida, alleged that the defendant failed to provide inmates with disabilities access to its programs and services in violation of federal law. Specifically, plaintiff alleged that defendant failed to provide interpreters, hearing aids, telecommunications access, and effective emergency alerts to inmates who were deaf or hard of hearing; failed to maintain wheelchair-accessible facilities or provide and maintain wheelchairs and prosthetic devices for inmates with mobility impairments; excluded inmates with disabilities from education, employment, and recreational programs; charged inmates for accommodations relating to their disabilities; retaliated against those who asserted their rights as persons with disabilities; and failed to train staff on issues related to disability rights and federal disability law. The plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the Eighth Amendment, and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
On April 25, 2016, the state filed a motion for partial dismissal. Florida argued that several of the inmates named in the Complaint were no longer in FDOC custody or had already settled their claims. The defendant also argued that several of the allegations were barred by a four-year statute of limitations.
The parties engaged in conferences over the next several months.
On January 9, 2017, the United States moved to intervene in the case, claiming a substantial interest because of the ADA and Section 504 issues at stake. On January 30, the plaintiff moved for summary judgment.
On February 6, 2017, the parties jointly moved for a stay of proceedings so that they could actively pursue settlement. On July 7, 2017, the parties notified the court that they had reached a settlement. The settlement required the FDOC to implement changes that would make Florida prison services, programming, and other aspects of daily activities, including emergency notifications, accessible to inmates with physical disabilities. The settlement also required FDOC to provide appropriate training for staff members on disability laws as well as establish internal policies regarding inmates with disabilities. The settlement required that DRF be able to conduct visits and speak confidentially with inmates to ensure compliance with the agreement. The settlement also required the FDOC to pay $2,000,000 in attorneys' fees and costs.
On July 11, Judge Robert L. Hinkle issued an order requiring the parties to comply with the Settlement Agreement, dismissing the claims, and retaining jurisdiction solely for the purpose of enforcing the Agreement. On July 13, the parties filed a motion asking the court to alter the July 11 order to reflect their wish that the Agreement be enforceable only through a breach of contract action in state court, not through an order of the U.S. District Court. Accordingly, on August 7, Judge Hinkle issued a new order recognizing as effective the parties' joint stipulation to dismiss the case with prejudice and end the court's jurisdiction.
However, in the fall of 2017, a number of inmates of FDOC, acting pro se, submitted filings to the court stating that they had been denied access to the settlement agreement or had been retaliated against for submitting grievances to the prison administration for issues relating to their disabilities. One inmate filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. On December 6, 2017, Judge Hinkle denied the motion, reasserting that the case was closed and suggesting that the individual file a separate lawsuit if he intended to pursue legal action. The same individual, again acting pro se, filed an appeal on December 4, 2017, with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, challenging the court's order closing the case. On December 18, he also appealed the order denying his motion for a preliminary injunction. On February 5, 2018, the court of appeals dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution.
The settlement is set to expire on July 6, 2021 so long as the defendants remain in compliance with the agreement. As of this writing in March 2019, the case remains ongoing.
Lauren Latterell Powell - 01/08/2018
Cianan Lesley - 03/17/2019
compress summary
