D.B. v. CorrectHealth East Baton Rouge, LLC
3:19-cv-00620
M.D. La.Aug 5, 2020Background
- Plaintiff D.B., a man diagnosed with Asperger’s Syndrome, was arrested and detained at East Baton Rouge Parish Prison (EBRPP); he alleges withdrawal/denial of psychiatric and cardiac medications and inadequate medical evaluation while in custody.
- Medical staff noted D.B. was autistic and recommended isolation; he was placed on the facility’s “M Line” (medical/behavioral lockdown units) where he lacked equal access to yard, phones, showers, and grievance procedures.
- While on the M Line, D.B. was targeted and sexually assaulted by other inmates; video evidence and internal investigation documented the abuse. He was released on bond shortly thereafter.
- D.B. (by next friend) sued the Sheriff, the City/Parish (owner of EBRPP), and CorrectHealth under Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act seeking injunctive/declaratory relief and damages for failure to accommodate and intentional discrimination.
- The Sheriff and City/Parish moved to dismiss (and the City/Parish alternatively moved to strike portions of the complaint). The district court denied both motions, finding (inter alia) that D.B alleged Article III standing for prospective relief and pleaded plausible ADA/RA claims, and that the City/Parish may be liable for discrimination occurring through contractors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing for injunctive/declaratory relief | D.B. has a permanent disability, prior arrests for the same obsessive behavior, and a realistic likelihood of future arrest and confinement at EBRPP, so prospective relief is appropriate. | Sheriff/City argue future incarceration is speculative; no imminent, concrete threat to support prospective relief. | Court: Standing pleaded. Prior incidents plus disability-driven recurrence made future harm sufficiently imminent (imminence is an "elastic" concept). Dismissal denied. |
| Sufficiency of ADA/RA claim against Sheriff (failure to accommodate / intentional discrimination) | Sheriff and staff knew D.B. was autistic, recommended isolation, but placed him where predators targeted him; failure to accommodate and disparate treatment alleged. | Sheriff: facts are contradictory; he lacked responsibility for medical care/physical facility; accommodation was provided (protective custody, phone access, showers). | Court: Complaint states plausible ADA/RA claims, including intentional discrimination theory (actual knowledge + failure to act); motion to dismiss denied. |
| Liability of City/Parish for discrimination when medical care provided by contractor (CorrectHealth) | City/Parish is the political entity that owns EBRPP and contracted for medical services; Title II covers services provided "through contractual ... arrangements." | City/Parish: CorrectHealth and Sheriff operated day-to-day prison functions; City/Parish not the actor for alleged misconduct. | Court: City/Parish can be liable for Title II violations occurring via contractors; motion to dismiss denied. |
| Motion to strike portions of complaint as irrelevant, prejudicial, or time‑barred | N/A (Plaintiff opposes) | City/Parish sought to strike paragraphs describing prior dysfunction, historical reports (2014–2017), and an interrogatory response as irrelevant/prejudicial. | Court: Motion to strike denied. Striking is drastic; the contested allegations are at least minimally related and may bear on intent/practice; relevance and admissibility better addressed later. |
Key Cases Cited
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (Sup. Ct. 2016) (standing requires concrete and particularized injury that is actual or imminent)
- Frame v. City of Arlington, 657 F.3d 215 (5th Cir. 2011) (imminence for ADA injunctive relief is an "elastic concept"; disabled plaintiffs need not undertake futile gestures)
- Pa. Dep't of Corr. v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206 (Sup. Ct. 1998) (Title II of the ADA applies to state prisons)
- Smith v. Harris Cty., Tex., 956 F.3d 311 (5th Cir. 2020) (standards for ADA/RA claims and requirement that intentional discrimination for damages requires at least actual notice)
- Cadena v. El Paso Cty., 946 F.3d 717 (5th Cir. 2020) (failure-to-accommodate facts can support a jury finding of intentional discrimination)
- Lyons v. City of Los Angeles, 461 U.S. 95 (Sup. Ct. 1983) (past harm alone does not establish standing for injunctive relief absent a real and immediate threat of repetition)
- Johnson v. City of Shelby, Miss., 135 S. Ct. 346 (Sup. Ct. 2014) (pleading standard: Rule 8 does not require citation of specific legal theories; short and plain statement suffices)
- Thompson v. City of Waco, Tex., 764 F.3d 500 (5th Cir. 2014) (Rule 12(b)(6) standard: accept well‑pleaded facts and test for facial plausibility)