UPDATE ON Porter v. Knickrehm
By Memorandum Opinion and Order dated November 23, 2004, this Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs' and Defendants' motions for summary judgment. In doing so, the Court rejected most of Defendants' arguments. First the Court concluded that Defendants' argument challenging Plaintiffs' capacity to sue comes too late and is waived. Next the Court found that Harve Porter's placement at the Alexander HDC amounts to confinement that implicates significant liberty interests and invokes the procedural guarantees of the Due Process Clause. Lastly, the Court concluded that the due process requirements set forth in Parham dictate the minimum procedural requirements for committing mentally retarded adults to state institutions; however, the Court concluded that Arkansas law falls short in that it does not require the HDC superintendents to discharge residents when they no longer require HDC services and that that post-admission review procedures are futile unless the State is charged with an affirmative duty to discharge residents who no longer need HDC services.
The Court dismissed Plaintiff Robert Norman's claims and he was dismissed as a party to this action. Plaintiffs' equal protection claim was dismissed with prejudice. Defendants were ordered to submit, within 20 days of the date of the Court's decision, proposed post-admission review procedures tailored to comport with the constitutional requirements set forth in Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979).
The Defendants submitted new post-admission review procedures and the Court entered judgment that the amended proposed rules are consistent with constitutional guarantees and provide an adequate remedy in the case.
On September 6, 2005, DRC appealed the judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on two issues: whether adults with mental retardation who are "involuntarily confined" or at risk of "involuntary confinement" in a human development center should be entitled to pre and post confinement hearings which provide the full panoply of protections guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the United States Constitution. The appeal is still pending.
6-19-2006: Listen to oral arguments given by DRC attorney Dana McClain in case number 05-2978 of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals.
8-8-2006: Read the decision on the appeal of case number 05-2978 by the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals.
HISTORY OF THE CASE
On October 14, 2003, Plaintiffs Harve Porter and Robert Norman, two adults with mental retardation, and Disability Rights Center filed their complaint against two employees of the Department of Human Services and the members of the Board of Developmental Disabilities Services ("Board") in their official capacities. Harve Porter, et al. v. Kurt Knickrehm, et al. U.S. Dist. Court Eastern District of Arkansas 4:03 CV00812SWW.
The complaint alleged that Defendants had involuntarily confined them in a human development center ("HDC") in violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Specifically, Plaintiffs Porter and Norman alleged that the state's admission and discharge procedures for its HDCs set forth in Ark. Code Ann. § 20-48-401 et seq. (Michie 2003 Suppl.) and Manual numbers 1020, 1037, 1053 and 1086 are unconstitutional because they do not provide adequate judicial hearings at which persons whose liberty is at stake can contest the state's effort to institutionalize them.
Plaintiffs sought a declaration that certain provisions of the Arkansas Mental Retardation Act and policies of the Arkansas Division of Developmental Disabilities Services governing admission and discharge from HDCs are unconstitutional. They also sought an order granting Harve Porter a judicial hearing in accordance with procedures and standards comporting with due process of law as mandated by the Court until such time as the Arkansas General Assembly enacts constitutional procedures pertaining to admission and discharge.
On February 12, 2004, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' original complaint. In doing so, the Court rejected most of Defendants' arguments. First, the Court concluded that Plaintiffs had alleged an injury-in-fact and thus Plaintiffs have standing. The Court also found the Rooker-Feldman doctrine did not apply because a favorable ruling on Plaintiffs' constitutional claims would neither reverse nor void prior state court decisions appointing guardians for Plaintiffs Porter and Norman.
Next, the Court found that Plaintiffs had alleged "state action" because they claim that they were confined without a hearing in a state institution against their wishes. The Court also found that Plaintiffs' claims for procedural due process are ripe for review and that Plaintiffs have not failed to exhaust any relevant state remedies. Lastly, the Court concluded that Younger abstention was unwarranted because nothing in the record indicated that Plaintiffs' guardianship cases are ongoing judicial proceedings under Younger. Plaintiffs were thus allowed to proceed with their procedural due process claims. Defendants Families and Friends of Care Facility Residents ("FF/CFR") and Ellen Sue Gibson's motion to intervene was granted. Defendants FF/CFR and Ellen Sue Gibson's motion to redact names was denied.
After Defendants answered Plaintiffs' 2nd Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs conducted discovery, including deposing the Director of Developmental Disabilities Services, the Alexander HDC Superintendent, Plaintiff Harve Porter's guardian, and the former Superintendent of the South East Arkansas HDC. Sworn statements were also taken from Robert Norman's guardian and a former social worker at South East Arkansas HDC.
Following the close of discovery, on July 27, 2004, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on both their Due Process and Equal Protection claims. Defendants also filed a motion for summary judgment on July 27, 2004.
A copy of the 2003 complaint is available [PDF].
|
