Law Offices of Patricia A. Streeter
Attorney at Law
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
CURRENT ISSUES
Mental Health Care Issues Pending in the Court of Appeals
Click here for the briefs, without the attachments (in .pdf format), submitted in the district court and the court of appeals relating to the trial trial on mental health issues that took place in 2008 (see the paragraph on the April and June Trial, below). Oral argument on the appeal was held on October 20, 2010; a decision from the appeals court is pending.
Trial Court
Plaintiffs’ Trial Brief, dated July 14, 2008
Defendants’ (MDOC) Trial Brief, dated July 21, 2008
Plaintiffs’ Reply Brief, dated August 4, 2008
Defendants’ (MDOC) Reply Brief, dated August 4, 2008
Decision Dismissing Mental Health (Against Plaintiffs), dated March 31, 2009
Appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Plaintiff’s Brief, dated July 16, 2009
Defendants’ Brief (MDOC), dated October 5, 2009
Plaintiffs’ Reply Brief, dated October 21, 2009
OIMM Sixth Report Addresses Inadequate Dialysis Care at Ryan
Before Judge Jonker dismissed the dialysis issues from the case, the last report by the Office of the Independent Medical Monitor of September 5, 2008 addressed the problems found in the care of the dialysis patients transferred from the now-closed Southern Michigan Prison at Jackson (JMF), who are now at the Ryan Facility (RRF) in Detroit. Click here for the OIMM Sixth Report (without the attachments, many of which are filed under seal for patient confidentiality).
Overview of the Health Care Issues In Hadix v. Caruso
Background
The Hadix case was filed by a group of prisoners in the Eastern District of Michigan in 1980 to redress a variety of unconstitutional conditions, including inadequate medical and mental health care, at certain designated Jackson, Michigan prison facilities operated by prison officials of the Michigan Department of Corrections pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Attorneys were later appointed to represent the prisoners. In 1985, a Consent Decree was entered by stipulation of the parties with the approval of United States District Judge John Feikens. Section II. of the Consent Decree pertained to medical and mental health care for prisoners within the Hadix facilities.
Judge Feikens initially transferred enforcement of medical and mental health care provisions of the Consent Decree to the Western District of Michigan, to Judge Richard Alan Enslen by Order of June 5, 1992 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Hadix v. Johnson, 792 F.Supp. 527, 528 (E.D.Mich.1992). The case has since been re-named Hadix v. Caruso, to reflect the name of the current MDOC Director, Patricia Caruso. The purpose of the Order was to promote uniformity and effectiveness of remedy in light of Judge Enslen’s enforcement of a Consent Decree involving the same issues in a separate suit – United States v. Michigan, Case No. 1:84-cv-63, a case in which the Hadix plaintiffs were already participating as amicus curiae.
Medical health care at the Hadix facilities was monitored by Judge Enslen since the 1992 transfer of the issue. Following the most recent full evidentiary hearing on medical health care on October 11-13, 2006, Judge Enslen issued a permanent injunction that continues previously ordered relief to remedy constitutionally inadequate health care, and ordered the creation of an Office of the Independent Medical Monitor with special powers to take corrective actions regarding patient care. That decision was appealed by the MDOC, but the decision remanded back to Judge Jonker in the district court for further proceedings in light of changing conditions.
April & June 2008 Trial on Mental Health Issues
Mental health care at the facilities was routinely monitored by the Court until 2001. On January 8, 2001, the Court granted Defendants' request to terminate enforcement of the mental health provisions of the Consent Decree effective upon ten days after the filing of an Updated Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) Monitoring and Data Validation document. The document was filed by Defendants on January 23, 2001, thus terminating the mental health issues. Plaintiffs moved on September 8, 2006 to reopen the terminated provisions and for a preliminary injunction pertaining to mental health care. The cause for the Motion was the tragic death of a Michigan prisoner, T.S., and other fatal cases in which inmates' deaths were attributable to delays or malfeasance in the provision of mental health care. The Court issued an injunction on November 13, 2006, requiring Defendants to make significant improvements to mental health care and cease the use of in-cell non-medical restraints for punishment. (Hadix v. Caruso, 461 F.Supp.2d 574 (W.D. Mich. 2006)). The decision of November 13, 2006 has been appealed by Defendants. The November 13, 2006 order also required Defendants to submit a proposed remedial plan for Court approval. That plan was submitted on December 29, 2006.
Following the 2006 order, after a period of discovery, plaintiffs’ expert filed their reports. One of plaintiffs’ experts is California psychiatrist Terry A. Kupers, M.D., whose pre-trial written report is provided at here with Attachment A only, to preserve patient confidentiality: Report of Dr. Kupers., and the other plaintiffs’ expert report filed before the trial is by psychologist Robert Walsh, Ph.D. (here with Attachments B-E only), who is the former administrator of the Reception Center. Report of Dr. Walsh. A trial on these issues has just concluded, on April 28-30, 2008 and June 11-12, 2008. Post-hearing briefing is due July 31, 2008, and oral argument is set for August 8, 2008.
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals Sent Back Medical-related Appeals Without a Decision on September 24, 2007
In a ruling on September 24, 2007 the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals remanded six orders entered by Judge Enlsen between November 2006 and May 14, 2007 described in the Court of Appeals opinion. The The appeals were sent back for the new judge, Robert J. Jonker, to consider the rulings in light of recent changes by the MDOC. The orders involved included those discussed below: the November 13, 2006 Ruling on Mental Health and Use of Punitive Restraints, the December 7, 2006 Ruling on Medical Health, and the rulings related to the closure of JMF on February 22, 2007 and March 6, 2007.
Judge Robert J. Jonker Assigned to Replace Judge Richard Alan Enslen on July 23, 2007
The Hadix v. Caruso litigation was reassigned to Judge Robert J. Jonker on July 23, 2007. Judge Jonker was recently appointed as a judge on the Western District Court bench, after Judge Richard Alan Enslen asked that the case be reassigned. At a hearing on August 29, 2007 Judge Jonker heard arguments on several issues, and on September 10, 2007 issued an order and opinion that approved the MDOC’s August Transfer Plan that lead the way to final closure of JMF (the Southern Michigan Correctional Facility at Jackson). With that order, the federal court no longer has jurisdiction of the care of the dialysis patients, now at the Ryan facility.
Background on the MDOC’s Plans to Close the Southern Michigan Correctional Facility (JMF)
On February 20, 2007, the MDOC announced the closing of Southern Michigan Correctional Facility (JMF) and 7 Block of the Charles Egeler Reception and Guidance Center (RGC). Plaintiffs remain concerned about the manner in which the Department of Corrections plans to execute these closures, suspecting that the choice of these particular cellblocks to close – housing a concentrated population of chronically ill prisoners, including about 70 on renal dialysis – is an attempt to move vulnerable prisoners beyond the reach of the Court rather than to fix the constitutional violations that currently place these prisoners in danger. As bad as the medical care is at these facilities with the federal court monitoring it, from reports we hear, it appears that health care is just as bad, if not worse, in the rest of the state, as recent public hearings before the Michigan legislature have illustrated.
On February 21, 2007 Plaintiffs requested and were granted a temporary restraining order that was followed by a February 22, 2007 Preliminary Injunction to delay these transfers. On February 28, 2007 Plaintiffs sought modification of the injunction to prevent the most medically vulnerable from transfer without the necessary steps to assure that they will be protected from a precipitous move to an unsafe environment.
Click here for the March 6, 2007 Opinion and Amended Preliminary Injunction
Click here for the February 22, 2007 Preliminary Injunction
With the assistance of Dr. Robert Cohen, the Independent Medical Monitor, a plan was developed by the MDOC, agreed to by the Plaintiffs, for the transfer of the dialysis unit to the Ryan Correctional Facility (RRF) in Detroit. Judge Enlsen then approved the transfer by an order on June 5, 2007. The transfer of the unit took place over the weekend of June 9, 2007.
Plaintiffs’ September 21, 2007 request for reconsideration was not granted, the transfer of the remaining prisoners will be pursuant to Judge Jonker’s order and opinion of September 10, 2007 approving the MDOC’s August Transfer Plan.
2006 Orders that were appealed by the MDOC and now returned to District Court Judge Jonkers:
December 28, 2006 Plan by Defendants Regarding Mental Health Activities, Submitted Pursuant to The Court’s November 13, 2006 Order and Preliminary Injunction.
Click here for the MDOC’s Plan (without attachments D and E, which contain patient personal information). Since then, on August 20, 2007, the MDOC filed a Revised Mental Health Plan. A subsequent Revised Mental Health Plan was filed in December , 2007.
December 7, 2006 Ruling on Medical Health
Hadix v. Caruso, --- F. Supp. 2d ----, No. 4:92-CV-110, 2006 WL 3518260 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 7, 2006). Following an evidentiary hearing, Judge Richard Alan Enslen granted the prisoner plaintiffs partial relief finding Defendants in civil contempt for failing to meet staffing obligations imposed by court order, issued a permanent injunction ordering continuation of the plan to remedy constitutionally inadequate health care provided to prisoners and ordering creation of an Office of the Independent Monitor with special powers to take corrective actions regarding patient care.
Click here for the full Injunction and Opinion (Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law).
November 13, 2006 Ruling on Mental Health and Use of Punitive Restraints
Hadix v. Caruso, --- F. Supp. 2d ----, No. 4:92-CV-110, 2006 WL 3275865 (W.D. Mich. Nov. 13, 2006). Following an evidentiary hearing, Judge Richard Alan Enslen granted the prisoner plaintiffs a preliminary injunction that reopened mental health care portions of the consent decree that were terminated under the PLRA in several years earlier, in 2000. The Court granted relief pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6). Judge Enslen explained that jurisdiction over other aspects of the case has been ongoing because enforcement of the medical health and fire safety provisions of the consent decree continues. The judge explained that under the circumstances it is necessary to reopen the mental health care portions of the consent decree as part of this case because that will impact the Court’s ability to oversee the never-terminated portions of the consent decree.
In granting relief, the judge found that the punitive use of in-cell restraints “constitutes torture and violates the Eighth Amendment,” and the practice is enjoined. Opinion, page 34. The Court also holds that the psychiatric and psychological staffing levels are constitutionally inadequate, and ordered Defendants to file a staffing plan. The Court also requires daily psychologist rounds in the segregation unit and requires protocols for medical/mental health staff and interdisciplinary meetings after finding that patients with medical and mental health problems fall into “the black hole between the disciplines.” Opinion, page 37.