Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Under the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Housing Choice Voucher Program, 42 U.S.C. 1437f, housing agencies use HUD funds to issue housing subsidy vouchers based on family size. The Montgomery County, Maryland Housing determined, based on a medical form, that Angelene has a disability and requires a live-in aide. HUD regulations mandate that any approved live-in aide must be counted in determining family size. The Commission issued Angelene a two-bedroom voucher. Angelene’s sister was Angelene’s live-in aide. Angelene decided to move to the District of Columbia. Program vouchers are portable. Angelene obtained a two-bedroom voucher from the D.C. Housing Authority. The sisters moved into a two-bedroom District apartment. Within weeks, they received a letter revoking Angelene’s right to a live-in aide and her legal entitlement to a two-bedroom voucher. They sued, citing the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12132, Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 794, and Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3604(f)(1). The court denied motions for a temporary restraining order and to seal their complaint, medical records, and “nondispositive materials.” While the case was pending, the Authority sent another letter reaffirming that Angelene’s request for a live-in aide was denied, but stating that the decision did not reverse the two-bedroom voucher. The court dismissed, finding no allegation of injury-in-fact. The D.C. Circuit reversed with respect to the motion to seal and the dismissal. At the pleadings stage, plaintiff’s allegation that the government denied or revoked a benefit suffices to show injury-in-fact. Angelene’s loss of a statutory entitlement traces directly to the Authority’s letter and would be redressed by a court order to approve her aide request. View "Hardaway v. District of Columbia Housing Authority" on Justia Law

In response to secretly recorded videos released by the Center for Medical Progress depicting conversations with Planned Parenthood employees elsewhere, LDHH terminated PPGC Louisiana Medicaid provider agreements. PPGC and the Individual Plaintiffs filed suit against LDHH under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(23) and the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The Individual Plaintiffs, three women who are Medicaid beneficiaries and who receive medical care from one of PPGC’s Louisiana facilities, seek to continue receiving care from PPGC’s facilities. The Individual Plaintiffs contend that LDHH’s termination action will deprive them of access to the qualified and willing provider of their choice, PPGC, in violation of Medicaid’s free-choice-of-provider provision. The district court entered a preliminary injunction against LDHH’s termination of PPGC’s Medicaid provider agreements. The court held that the Individual Plaintiffs met their burden to show their entitlement to a preliminary injunction; the district court did not abuse its discretion in preliminarily enjoining LDHH’s termination of PPGC’s provider agreements; and thus the court affirmed the district court's preliminary injunction, remanding for further proceedings. View "Planned Parenthood v. Gee" on Justia Law

The Home and Community‐Based Care Waiver Program allowed states to diverge from the traditional Medicaid structure by providing community‐based services to people who would, under the traditional structure, require institutionalization, 42 U.S.C. 1396n. The Indiana Family and Social Services Administration operates the Aged and Disabled Medicaid Waiver Program (A&D waiver), the Community Integration and Habilitation Medicaid Waiver Program (CIH waiver), and the Family Supports Medicaid Waiver Program (FS waiver). Because Indiana has closed most of its institutional facilities, these waiver programs serve the vast majority of its people with disabilities. Until 2011, the Administration placed many people with developmental disabilities on the A&D waiver, which has no cap on services. The Administration then changed its policies, rendering many developmentally disabled persons ineligible for the A&D waiver. These people were moved to the FS waiver, under which they may receive services capped at $16,545 annually. The CIH waiver is uncapped, but not everyone qualifies for the CIH waiver. Plaintiffs argue that their new assignments violated the integration mandate of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12101 because it deprives them of community interaction and puts them at risk of institutionalization. The court granted defendants summary judgment on the integration‐mandate claims and denied class certification. The Seventh Circuit reversed, finding that there is a genuine dispute of material fact with respect to the individual claims based on the integration mandate. The court agreed that the proposed class is too vague. View "Steimel v. Wernert" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, who suffers from Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome, filed suit against the Department after it denied him "shelter needy" benefits, raising claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983; the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 12 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.; and the Rehabilitation Act (RA), 29 U.S.C. 701 et seq. The court concluded that the appeal was timely, rejecting the district court's conclusion that plaintiff did not timely file notice and proof of service; concluded that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine is inapplicable to judicial review of executive action, including determinations made by a state administrative agency; and disagreed with the district court’s conclusion that section 256.045 of the Minnesota statutes prevented the court from exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the appeal from a state agency’s decision. In interpreting Minn. Stat. 256.045, subd. 7, the court concluded that subdivision 7 lays out one permissible route through which an aggrieved party may appeal from the Commissioner’s order and thus prevent it from becoming final, but it does not strip the federal court of its authority to hear the same appeal through the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. Because the district court improperly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction based solely on the state statute, the district court failed to determine whether it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1367 or whether any abstention doctrine applied. Therefore, the court vacated the decision dismissing the supplemental state-law claim and remanded for further consideration. Because the state agency’s decision was not final, the district court erred by finding that plaintiff’s ADA and RA claims were precluded. Finally, the court agreed with the district court that plaintiff's allegations failed to state a due process or equal protection claim. Because plaintiff’s equal protection claim is predicated on the same allegations as his ADA and RA claims, the district court did not err by dismissing the section 1983 claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Wong v. Minnesota DHS" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, a class of children eligible for Texas's Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment program, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for violations of federal Medicaid law. Plaintiffs subsequently entered into a consent decree with various Texas state officials (defendants) calculated to improve implementation of the Program. In 2007, the parties agreed to a "Corrective Action Order." In 2013, defendants moved to terminate a portion of the Order and associated consent decree paragraphs under Rule 60(b)(5). The district court granted the motion and plaintiffs appealed. Determining that plaintiffs have not forfeited their appeal, the court concluded that the district court properly terminated the portion of bullet points 8-10 concerning the completion of the four assessments at issue. The court relied on certain district court decisions to interpret the proper interpretation of "shortage" - which compares the provider-to-class-member ratio with the average client load of the relevant class of provider - and concluded that the district court erred in terminating the portion of bullet points 8-10 that orders defendants to develop plans to address “shortage[s]” identified by the assessments. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's order in part and remanded for further proceedings. The court affirmed the portion of the district court’s order terminating bullet points 6-7 and consent decree paragraph 93, and the court vacated the portion of the district court's order terminating the challenged sentence of bullet point 5. View "Frew v. Janek" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, including many with disabilities, had cases pending in state courts and were represented by an attorney who uses a wheelchair. They claimed that the St. Joseph County Courthouse and the Mishawaka County Services Building did not comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act, particularly with respect to restrooms, elevators, witness stands, jury boxes, jury deliberation rooms, attorney podiums, spectator seating, entrance ramps, clerk counters, services for the blind, water fountains, and parking. While the case was pending, defendants remodeled the courthouse restrooms, which are now accessible. Defendants presented evidence that their facilities complied with the statutes. Plaintiffs offered little evidence in rebuttal. The district court granted defendants summary judgment. The court dismissed the claims of non-disabled plaintiffs represented by a disabled lawyer and claims relating to jury facilities, saying that the ADA did not provide for “associational” standing. The court found no evidence that other plaintiffs had suffered past injuries that would support standing for damages, and that the prospect of future injury was too speculative to support an injunction. Some plaintiffs had died; some were no longer in litigation. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, without finding the facilities compliant and without expressing an opinion on possible future claims. View "Hummel v. St. Joseph Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Leslie Taylor asked the Colorado Medicaid program to combine the benefits she received through two assistance programs to help her get to medical appointments. If approved, this combination would allow the agency to pay attendants for time driving Taylor to and from her appointments. The agency refused, and the plaintiffs in this case alleged that the refusal constituted discrimination against Taylor based on her disability. The Tenth Circuit concluded that this refusal did not constitute discriminate against Taylor based on her disability. View "Taylor v. Colorado Dept of Health Care" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of dual status National Guard technicians who had their benefits determined prior to the court's issuance of Petersen v. Astrue and would like to have their benefits readjusted to take advantage of the decision to avoid application of the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP). The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The court affirmed the district court's decision to reject the application of mandamus jurisdiction where the district court held that there is no clear, nondiscretionary duty on behalf of the SSA to apply the Peterson decision to plaintiffs. The court also concluded that plaintiffs failed to present a colorable constitutional claim on equal protection grounds that would justify the application of the exception to 42 U.S.C. 405(g)’s jurisdictional limitations. Plaintiffs’ due process claim also does not support application of an exception to 405(g). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Mitchael v. Colvin" on Justia Law

California Education Code 56346(f) requires school districts to initiate a due process hearing if the school district determines that a portion of an Individualized Education Program (IEP) to which a parent does not consent is necessary to provide a child with a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1400–1450. The ALJ concluded that the district offered an appropriate placement but Mother's refusal to consent prevented the district from implementing and providing a FAPE. I.R. appealed, but the district court affirmed. The court concluded that the district court erred in concluding that the district could not initiate a due process hearing to address Mother's refusal to the IEP's recommended placement. In this case, the district waited a year and a half before initiating a hearing, which the court determined was too long a period of time. Therefore, to the extent that I.R. lost an educational opportunity and was deprived of educational benefits for an unreasonably prolonged period, the district can be held responsible for denying her a FAPE for that unreasonably prolonged period. The court reversed and remanded. View "I.R. v. L.A. U.S.D." on Justia Law

The Centralia state-operated developmental center, one of seven Illinois SODCs, houses approximately 200 severely disabled individuals, some having the mentality of an infant or toddler. Many also have serious aggressive, or self-destructive behavioral disorders. The seven SODCs have, in total, about 1800 residents, while about 10,000 people with severe developmental disabilities live in community-based facilities: houses or apartments in residential settings that accommodate one to eight residents. The state agency provides services (such as housing and medical care) to approximately 25,000 developmentally disabled persons. Another 23,000 or so are on a waiting list; 6000 are considered to be in emergency situations. Since 2012 Illinois has been trying to shift SODC residents to community-based facilities, in accordance with a national trend: community-based facilities are cheaper than SODCs and there is evidence that even persons who are severely disabled mentally or behaviorally or both do better in community-based facilities. A suit, on behalf of the Centralia SODC residents, alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12132. The Seventh Circuit affirmed denial of a preliminary injunction to prevent assessment and transfer of those residents, reasoning that the urgency required for emergency relief had not been shown. View "Ill. League of Advocates for Developmentally Disabled v. Ill. Dep't of Human Servs." on Justia Law