United States v. Tennessee

925 F.Supp. 1292 (W.D. Tn. 1995)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

The Arlington Developmental Center is a state-operated, residential mental retardation facility housing 383 developmentally disabled persons located in Arlington, Tennessee. ADC's population consists primarily of individuals currently assessed as severely or profoundly retarded or developmentally disabled, some of whom have associated physical handicaps, and mental or behavioral problems. The federal government pays sixty-six percent of the costs of operation of this facility, with the State of Tennessee paying the remaining thirty-four percent. The United States and the State of Tennessee have been in dispute regarding conditions at ADC since 1990. On January 21, 1992, the United States (P) filed this action against the State of Tennessee (D) and Arlington Developmental Center, pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1997-1997j (1988). The Court held that conditions at ADC were in violation of the rights of its residents under the United States Constitution. The Court entered a preliminary injunction and established a schedule for submittal of a remedial plan by D. As a result of that procedure, P and D negotiated a plan to remedy the unconstitutional conditions at ADC. At an April 10, 1995, hearing, the Court determined that the State had achieved full compliance with only five of the sixty-five self-imposed deadlines within the first ninety-day period. D offered a Plan of Correction and stipulated to it. The record supports the conclusion that, between April 10, 1995, and June 30, 1995, the State abandoned its goal of achieving compliance with its own Stipulated Remedial Order and its own Plan of Correction. Several patient deaths and the second compliance inspection by the Monitor and her Developmental Medicine Expert on June 27-30, 1995, led P and the Monitor to request an Emergency Order on June 30, 1995. D acknowledged that the facts constituting an emergency existed, and agreed to the Emergency Order requirements. At the end of the July 10, 1995, hearing, additional time to achieve compliance with the Emergency Order and Preliminary Injunction provisions was granted, and a compliance hearing was scheduled for August 9, 1995. At the hearing on August 9, 1995, clear and convincing proof was presented by P that D still was not in compliance with five of the provisions of the Emergency Order and Preliminary Injunction. P insisted, in closing argument, that D be found in contempt based on its failure to comply with remedial provisions to which it had agreed. The United States left the sanctions to be imposed to the discretion of the Court. The Court found the State in contempt and ordered minimal coercive and remedial sanctions to assure that D would accomplish the five emergency provisions which were agreed to on June 30, 1995. Besides daily monetary sanctions, the Commissioner was required to spend every fourth weekend at ADC until D was in full compliance with the five emergency remedial provisions to which it had agreed on June 30, 1995, but which, as of August 9, 1995, it had not done.