In 1991, a group of disabled Maryland state prisoners incarcerated at the Roxbury Correctional Institution in Hagerstown, Maryland, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, filed a Section 1983 class action suit in federal district court for the District of Maryland against the prison and officials for the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services. The suit alleged that officials discriminated against the plaintiffs because of their disabilities, in violation of section 504 of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Rehabilitation Act.

Defendants moved for summary judgment and in June 1996, the District Court (Judge J. Frederick Motz) granted defendants' motion entering judgment in favor of defendants against plaintiffs. Plaintiffs appealed, and in September 1997, the Court of Appeals affirmed holding that the ADA and Rehabilitation Acts do not apply to ""state correctional facilities."" Amos v. Md. Dep't of Pub. Safety and Corr. Servs., 126 F.3d 589 (4th Cir. 1997).

In June 1998, the Supreme Court granted certiorari and vacated and remanded for further consideration in light of Penn. Dep't of Corr. v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206 (1998). Amos v. Md. Dep't of Pub. Safety and Corr. Servs., 524 U.S. 935 (1998). On remand, the Court of Appeals held that the application of the ADA and Rehabilitation Act to state prisons was a ""valid exercise of Congress' authority under the Fourteenth Amendment,"" and that the State of Maryland was not entitled to immunity from suit under the 11th Amendment because Congress had validly abrogated that immunity. Amos v. Md. Dep't of Pub. Safety and Corr. Servs., 178 F.3d 212 (4th Cir. 1999).

In February 2000, the Fourth Circuit granted defendants' petition for rehearing en banc, but a few days prior to oral argument, the parties reached a settlement. The Fourth Circuit accepted the parties' stipulation of dismissal and in March 2000, ordered the case dismissed. Amos v. Md. Dep't of Pub. Safety and Corr. Servs., 205 F.3d 687 (4th Cir. 2000). The terms of the settlement agreement were not included in the opinion and are not available in the case file. The PACER docket does not contain any entries after March 28, 2000.

Eoghan Keenan - 05/24/2005


compress summary