On March 13, 1998, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against the State of Georgia under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. § 14141. The Complaint, brought in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, alleged that the State failed to protect the constitutional rights of juveniles incarcerated in the State's correctional facilities. Specifically, the State denied the youths adequate special educational services and medical and mental health care, and facilities staff used excessive force and arbitrary disciplinary policies. In addition, the facilities lacked sufficient living space, sufficient numbers of trained staff, and recreational activities. The government sought an injunction against these practices.

The government's lawsuit was prompted by its 1997 investigation of Georgia's juvenile facilities. On February 13, 1998, the Department reported to the State its findings, gathered from documents, interviews, and on-site visits to juvenile facilities. The report described extensive inadequacies in medical care, education and rehabilitation, and staff supervision. The report also included instances of abuse, overcrowding, and the use of chemical restraints.

The parties reached an out-of-court settlement agreement, which called for the defendants to make changes in the practices described in the complaint, including improving medical and mental health care, access to educational and recreational activities, and refraining from the use of excessive force. The agreement provided for enforcement by a monitor, who would submit reports on the State's progress every six months.

The parties submitted a Joint Motion for Conditional Dismissal, which the court (Judge Julie E. Carnes) approved on March 31, 1998. The court closed the case the same day.

On July 22, 2008, the parties filed a joint motion to reopen the case, which was granted by the court. The parties entered a joint modification of the 1998 agreement with the court. This new stipulation stated that the defendants had reached substantial compliance with all terms of the agreement. On May 5, 2009, the case was again closed.

Kristen Sagar - 06/15/2009


compress summary