On January 30, 2018, Disability Rights Florida filed this suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida against the Florida Department of Corrections (FDOC). The case was assigned to Judge Robert Hinkle. The plaintiff alleged that FDOC provided inadequate mental health treatment to prisoners in violation of the Eighth Amendment, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 42 U.S.C. §§ 12132, and the Rehabilitation Act 29 U.S.C. § 701. The plaintiff brought the suit under 42 U.S.C § 1983, the ADA, and the Rehabilitation Act and sought declaratory and injunctive relief, in addition to attorneys' fees.
Specifically, the complaint alleged a number of constitutional and statutory violations, including a lack of individualized treatment planning, a lack of individualized treatment services, an inadequate number of hours for out-of-cell treatment and activities, inadequate treatment for patients engaging in self-injurious behavior, inappropriate psychotropic medication practices, and inadequate discharge planning. The complaint also alleged excessive use of isolation and restraint on inpatient mental health units, an inadequate punitive or disciplinary process for patients on the inpatient mental health units, limited to no coordination between medical and mental health teams for those in inpatient mental health units, and inadequate training of security and clinical staff assigned to the inpatient mental health units.
In December 2016, before this suit was filed, the plaintiff notified the defendant of its intention to file this lawsuit and sent the defendant a draft copy of the complaint and a letter suggesting that the parties engage in mediation. Beginning in January 2017, the parties engaged in pre-litigation mediation sessions with Judge Harvey E. Scheslinger in order to negotiate a resolution.
In December of 2017, after twelve months of mediation, the parties reached a final agreement. The parties agreed to remedy the constitutional violations, submit to independent monitoring, and pay attorneys' fees. In order to remedy the constitutional violations, the defendant promised to create and revise individualized treatment plans, mandate a minimum number of out-of-cell hours, appropriately treat inmates engaging in self-injurious behavior, appropriately administer psychotropic medication, and implement discharge planning. Finally, the parties agreed that Judge Schleslinger should preside over the case and enforce the settlement agreement because of his involvement with the mediation process.
On January 31, 2018, the parties filed a joint motion in which they asked the court to approve the proposed settlement agreement. After transferring the case to Judge Schlesinger, the court adopted the settlement agreement on February 7, 2018. The court retains jurisdiction over the case until December 31, 2020, or 60 days after the receipt of the final monitoring report, whichever is sooner.
In December 2019, the plaintiffs notified the defendants of their belief that the defendants were not in substantial compliance with the agreement at several prisons. The parties engaged in negotiations regarding the results of the first round of monitoring developed corrective action plans to address shortcomings identified in the first compliance assessment. But then the COVID-19 pandemic began causing several prisons to implement quarantines and interrupting the second round of monitoring under the agreement. The parties agreed to amend the settlement agreement and requested the court approve the modification in December 2020. Under the amended agreement, the court’s jurisdiction was extended until June 30, 2022. The court approved the settlement amendment on December 15, 2020. As of March 29, 2021, monitoring for compliance of the settlement agreement was ongoing.
Hope Brinn - 10/18/2018
Emily Kempa - 03/29/2021
compress summary
