Filed Date: Dec. 15, 2006
Closed Date: 2011
Clearinghouse coding complete
On December 15, 2006, the United States filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the state of Oklahoma and its' officials and subgroups responsible for operation of the L.E. Rader Center ("Rader") juvenile detention facility. The complaint, as amended on May 4, 2007, alleged that the defendants (1) denied Rader's residents their rights to protection from harm from staff, from other residents, and from improper administration of psychotropic drugs; (2) provided inadequate mental health care at Rader, particularly as to screening, assessment, treatment and transition planning, and psychiatric and psychological services; and (3) failed to provide required special education services to qualifying Rader residents. Represented by Department of Justice Civil Rights Division attorneys, the federal government initiated the action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 14141, the pattern or practice provision of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The amended complaint alleged that the state defendants' conduct violated the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and related regulations, and the Individuals with Disabilities Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1401.
The case, assigned to District Judge Gregory K. Frizzell, prompted motion and discovery practice resulting in several June 2007, unpublished orders by Magistrate Judge Frank H. McCarthy. These addressed matters such as protective orders to keep disclosed information about residents confidential; scheduling of on-site inspections at Rader by plaintiffs' counsel and expert consultants; who would bear the cost of security escorts during the visits (the United States, said the magistrate); and whether interviews conducted during the visits would have to be recorded (they would).
In June 2008, a settlement was reached and on September 9, 2008, the court (Judge Frizzell) entered an order incorporating the consent decree. The case was terminated at this time. The consent decree included resolutions to protect juvenile residents from harm, prevention of suicide and self-harm, mental health care, and special education claims, and was set to expire three years from the date it was signed.
In September 2011, a little over a week before the consent decree was set to expire, the plaintiffs filed an emergency motion to modify the decree. The plaintiffs alleged that since Rader was closed by the state in 2011, there had been several incidents at two "replacement" facilities. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had not given them full access to investigate the incidents. The plaintiffs wanted the consent decree modified to extend to these other facilities so that the incidents could be investigated with the support of the court. The defendants objected, arguing that Rader was the only facility under the order and that the two facilities are not replacements as defined in the consent decree. The court agreed with the defendants, finding that the separate, pre-existing juvenile centers were not replacements under the terms of the consent decree. Defendants then filed a Motion to Dismiss, citing the expiration of the consent decree, which the court granted on November 18, 2011.
Summary Authors
Elizabeth Daligga (7/27/2012)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4682544/parties/united-states-v-oklahoma-state-of/
Acosta, R. Alexander (District of Columbia)
Baker, Wyn D. (Oklahoma)
Becker, Grace Chung (District of Columbia)
Brown Cutlar, Shanetta Y. (District of Columbia)
Coon, Laura (District of Columbia)
Frizzell, Gregory Kent (Oklahoma)
McCarthy, Frank H. (Oklahoma)
Acosta, R. Alexander (District of Columbia)
Becker, Grace Chung (District of Columbia)
Brown Cutlar, Shanetta Y. (District of Columbia)
Coon, Laura (District of Columbia)
Donnelly, Matthew J. (District of Columbia)
Glasse, Fortune A. (District of Columbia)
Grigsby, Stacey Kamya (District of Columbia)
Jung, Je Yon (District of Columbia)
Kim, Wan J. (District of Columbia)
McDuffie, Kenyan (District of Columbia)
Myrthil, Marlysha (District of Columbia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4682544/united-states-v-oklahoma-state-of/
Last updated March 27, 2024, 3:01 a.m.
State / Territory: Oklahoma
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: Dec. 15, 2006
Closing Date: 2011
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
U.S. Department of Justice
Plaintiff Type(s):
U.S. Dept of Justice plaintiff
Attorney Organizations:
U.S. Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Oklahoma Office of Juvenile Affairs, State
Oklahoma Board of Juvenile Affairs, State
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Indv. w/ Disab. Educ. Act (IDEA), Educ. of All Handcpd. Children Act , 20 U.S.C. § 1400
Section 504 (Rehabilitation Act), 29 U.S.C. § 701
Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act, 34 U.S.C. § 12601 (previously 42 U.S.C. § 14141)
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Order Duration: 2008 - 2011
Content of Injunction:
Issues
General:
Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:
Sexual abuse by residents/inmates
Sex w/ staff; sexual harassment by staff
Assault/abuse by staff (facilities)
Assault/abuse by non-staff (facilities)
Disability and Disability Rights:
Affected Sex or Gender:
Medical/Mental Health:
Type of Facility: