On September 30, 2016, three individuals with severe mental illness deemed incompetent to stand trial in criminal proceedings against them filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. The plaintiffs sued the Alabama Department of Mental Health under the Fourteenth Amendment and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The plaintiffs, represented by Alabama Disability Advocacy Program, the ACLU of Alabama Foundation, and private counsel, sought declaratory and both preliminary and permanent injunctive relief.
The plaintiffs claimed that individuals with severe mental illness who had been deemed incompetent to stand trial in Alabama had to wait an average of eight months between the date of the court order committing them to the Alabama Department of Mental Health for treatment and the actual start of their treatment. During that time, these individuals were forced to stay in county jails that lacked the resources they needed.
The Alabama Department of Mental Health moved to dismiss the case on November 4, 2016, and the court denied the motion on November 30, 2016. On December 23, the plaintiffs amended the lawsuit to proceed as a class action, and they sought a preliminary injunction. Settlement negotiations delayed the scheduled preliminary injunction hearing.
The parties settled. They filed a joint motion for preliminary approval of the settlement on April 4, 2017, and the Court agreed on May 9, 2016. In doing so, the Court granted class certification. The class was defined as all persons who have been, or will be during the period that this Agreement remains in effect, charged with a crime, within the meaning of Rule 1.4(b) of the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure, in a court of competent jurisdiction in the State of Alabama, and detained in an Alabama city or county jail or Alabama Department of Corrections facility while awaiting a court-ordered Mental Evaluation or court-ordered Competency Restoration Treatment.
Before the settlement could be finalized, the parties had to provide notice of the settlement agreement to the settlement class and criminal defense counsel of settlement class members, state officials, and the Alabama Circuit Courts. The parties did so, and the Court held conferences for class members to voice their objections to the settlement. Because none of the class members who had voiced objections wanted to testify, the court decided not to hear testimony from class members.
On January 25, 2018, the Court ordered a final settlement approval and approved the negotiated consent decree. (The motion for a preliminary injunction from December 2016 was denied because the settlement made it moot.) Under the terms of the settlement, the Alabama Department of Mental Health agreed to provide for mental health treatment for incarcerated individuals to be completed within forty-five days by the end of twelve months and within thirty days by the end of twenty-four months. The Department also agreed to install more beds to accommodate more patients, provide training for relevant personnel. Alabama Disability Advocacy Program agreed to monitor compliance. The Decree was set to last at least 3 years. If the state failed to achieve substantial compliance nine months prior to the end of that term, the plaintiffs could move to extend the term by four months. In the meantime, the court retained jurisdiction to enforce the decree, on the plaintiffs' motion.
Under the Consent Decree, the state was to pay the plaintiffs $270,000 in legal fees incurred through March 13, 2017. The Department agreed to pay for the monitoring at a rate of $195 per hour, as well as for attorney fees sustained after March 13, 2017 at a rate of $275 per hour. (2018 WL 564856)
On February 2, 2018, the plaintiffs sought their legal fees, estimating that the state owed $342,986 in attorney fees and $9,677 for other litigation costs. This was settled on March 19, 2018, for $66,794 in attorney fees and $8,688.84 in other litigation costs.
Monitoring of the consent decree is ongoing until at least 2021. The first status report of 2019 resulted in the parties entering into a joint remedial plan for noncompliance on November 4, 2019. The court held a status conference on the parties' progress and barriers to noncompliance on February 5, 2020 and the parties modified the consent decree later that month. The modifications require the defendant to update their policy of deciding how to prioritize the allocation of outpatient evaluations among the counties that the Health Department serves.
As of April 12, 2020, this case is ongoing as the court monitors compliance with the consent decree.
Rebecca Strauss - 05/16/2018
Alex Moody - 04/12/2020
compress summary
