INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION v. COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, 1:08-cv-01317

Plaintiffs IPAS and named prisoners sued the IDOC Commissioner in official capacity alleging cruel and unusual punishment from prolonged segregation of seriously mentally ill prisoners.
Bench trial occurred July 25–29, 2011; evidence and site visits proceeded, with post-trial briefs filed.
IDOC houses mentally ill inmates in segregation units and two mental-health units (New Castle Psychiatric Facility and SNU at Wabash Valley).
GN: Segregation conditions involve extreme isolation, confinement in small cells, limited out-of-cell time, limited recreation, and restricted privacy for mental health care; treatment largely aggregate-focused and infrequent.
The court certified the plaintiff class under Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(2), and held there is a constitutional violation requiring a remedial injunction tailored to current conditions.
The remedy process is to be developed in a separate proceeding within 45 days, balancing prison administration with plaintiffs’ rights.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the action may proceed as a class action	IPAS seeks class treatment under Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(2)	Commissioner argues potential decertification under Wal-Mart v. Dukes	Class action certified; decertification denied; certification allowed under 23(b)(2) (and possible extension under 23(b)(3)).
Whether segregation of mentally ill prisoners violates the Eighth Amendment	Segregation causes decompensation and violates humane treatment	IDOC contends conditions are lawful prison administration	Yes, segregation of seriously mentally ill prisoners violates the Eighth Amendment.
Whether IDOC’s mental-health care in segregation constitutes deliberate indifference	Mental-health care is inadequate in scope, intensity, and frequency	Care provided but not deliberately indifferent	Deliberate indifference shown; care is insufficient to meet constitutional standards.
What remedy is appropriate for the constitutional violation	Equitable relief to remedy ongoing violations	Remedy should respect prison administration	Remedy to be developed through court-ordered conference within 45 days; injunctive relief tailored to current violations.
Scope of PLRA and current conditions in formulating relief	Current conditions justify expansive remedial measures under Plata framework	Remedies must avoid overreach and respect state interests	Remedial plan to address ongoing, current violations; PLRA considerations acknowledged; actionable plan to be developed.

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (U.S. 1976) (prisoner's right to adequate medical care under Eighth Amendment)
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (U.S. 1994) (duty to provide humane conditions and medical care in prisons)
Brown v. Plata, 131 S. Ct. 1910 (U.S. 2011) (Eighth Amendment standards for prison conditions; systemic relief considerations)
Duckworth v. Franzen, 780 F.2d 645 (7th Cir. 1985) (definition of deliberate indifference; required intent to prevent harm)
Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294 (U.S. 1991) (subjective and objective components of punishment; deliberate indifference framework)
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (U.S. 2011) (class certification under Rule 23; commonality concerns in 23(b)(2) context)
Madrid v. Gomez, 889 F. Supp. 1146 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (context for psychological impact of segregation and courts' remedial authority)