Abbott v. G.G.E
463 S.W.3d 633
| Tex. App. | 2015Background
- Three adults with intellectual disabilities (G.G.E., E.M.B., G.D.E.) have been confined in Texas State Supported Living Centers (SSLCs) for decades and have had no post-commitment judicial review. IDTs annually reviewed residents and concluded each could live in less restrictive community settings, but none received a completed community referral.
- Plaintiffs (the three individuals through next friend Geoffrey Courtney and Disability Rights Texas) sued state officials seeking (a) declaratory and injunctive relief that indefinite commitments without periodic judicial review violate procedural due course of law under the Texas Constitution, (b) declarations that failure to provide community referrals violates substantive due course and the Persons with Mental Retardation Act (PMRA), and (c) related relief under the UDJA.
- State defendants filed a plea to the jurisdiction asserting lack of standing (including Courtney’s authority as next friend and DRTx’s organizational standing), that the Consent Decree with the U.S. DOJ controls, that PMRA remedies are exclusive, and that APA review is exclusive for agency rule challenges.
- The United States filed a statement of interest saying court-ordered periodic judicial review would not conflict with the DOJ Consent Decree and that any discharges must comply with the Consent Decree’s safety and implementation requirements.
- The trial court denied the plea to the jurisdiction and motion to show authority; the court of appeals affirmed, finding Courtney properly allowed to proceed as next friend, that plaintiffs have standing (including redressability) for procedural and substantive due-course claims, that PMRA remedies are not exclusive and UDJA relief is available, and that the claims do not amount to an APA-only rule challenge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next-friend authority (Courtney) | Courtney is a competent advocate and may proceed under Tex. R. Civ. P. 44 to represent incapacitated adults with no guardian | Courtney lacked procedural appointment equivalent to probate guardianship (Saldarriaga) and might have conflicts | Court: trial court did not abuse discretion; capacity is undisputed and factual inquiry supports Courtney as next friend; Saldarriaga safeguards apply when capacity/consent contested, but here capacity is conceded |
| Standing — procedural due course (judicial review) | Indeterminate commitments under PMRA deprive liberty; declaratory/injunctive relief imposing periodic judicial review would redress injury | A declaration would be advisory and not redress because legislature/courts or Consent Decree control relief; speculative change | Court: Plaintiffs pleaded live controversy; declaratory relief is proper to adjudicate constitutionality and is redressable; Consent Decree does not preclude relief |
| Standing — substantive due course (failure to provide referrals) | Failure to refer or discharge residents to less restrictive settings violates substantive due course and PMRA; court relief can remedy arbitrary deprivation | Relief duplicates DOJ Consent Decree litigation or is not redressable because Consent Decree governs | Court: Plaintiffs have standing; Consent Decree does not bar state-court relief; substantive due-course claim cognizable at pleading stage |
| PMRA remedies / UDJA / APA scope | PMRA protects rights and plaintiffs may obtain declaratory/ injunctive relief under UDJA in addition to civil penalties; their suit challenges application/policies, not a rule-only attack | PMRA’s statutory penalties are exclusive and APA provides exclusive avenue for agency-rule challenges | Court: PMRA expressly states its remedies do not supersede other remedies; UDJA is a proper vehicle; plaintiffs challenge application/policies affecting individuals (not only a rule) so APA exclusivity does not strip UDJA jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Urbish v. 127th Judicial Dist. Court, 708 S.W.2d 429 (Tex. 1986) (standard for abuse of discretion when best-interest considerations govern)
- Miranda v. Texas Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (plea to the jurisdiction framework and pleading burden)
- Saldarriaga v. Saldarriaga, 121 S.W.3d 493 (Tex. App.—Austin 2003) (next-friend appointment should parallel probate procedures when capacity/consent contested)
- Heckman v. Williamson County, 369 S.W.3d 137 (Tex. 2012) (Texas standing parallels federal Article III standing)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (injury‑in‑fact, causation, redressability test)
- Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1982) (liberty interests of involuntarily committed persons, standard for judicial oversight of professional judgment)
- Barshop v. Medina County Underground Water Conservation Dist., 925 S.W.2d 618 (Tex. 1996) (plaintiff challenging statute must show actual or threatened injury under the statute)