Lakey v. Taylor ex rel. Shearer
2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 4773
Tex. App.2014Background
- Plaintiffs Disability Rights Texas and nine incompetent-to-stand-trial detainees challenge the Department of State Health Services' Forensic Clearinghouse List (bed-allocation system) delaying competency-restoration treatment.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Plaintiffs; Commissioner appealed.
- List allocates state hospital beds among four categories of patients and requires detainees to wait in county jail for beds to become available.
- Evidence showed long waits (e.g., average 306 detainees on List in 2011; some waits up to seven months; plaintiffs waited 4–17 weeks) and that county jails do not provide competency-restoration.
- Defendant argues the List has a rational basis and that no constitutional right to competency-restoration treatment exists; Plaintiff seeks facial invalidation of the List.
- Court holds the List is not unconstitutional on its face and reverses the trial court, vacating the injunction and rendering for Commissioner.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the List violates the Texas Constitution on its face. | Plaintiffs argue wait-listing infringing due process/due course rights. | Commissioner argues rational basis; no right to prompt treatment. | List not unconstitutional on its face. |
| Propriety of the 21-day injunctive deadline and related relief. | Equitable relief depends on success; aim to provide prompt treatment. | Court should not reach merits; relief challenged. | Injunction vacated; merits not reached. |
| Whether the Court should reconsider standing in Lakey I. | Standing exists for plaintiffs to bring these claims. | Standing should be reconsidered. | Declines to reconsider standing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (U.S. Supreme Court 1972) (limits on confinement for competency restoration; duration must be reasonable)
- DeShaney v. Winnebago Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (U.S. Supreme Court 1989) (due process protects against arbitrary state deprivation of liberty in custody)
- Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307 (U.S. Supreme Court 1982) (duty to provide reasonable care and safety in custody)
- Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71 (U.S. Supreme Court 1992) (due process requires rational relation to confinement purpose)
- Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (U.S. Supreme Court 1979) (detention conditions must relate to purposes of confinement and not be punishment)
- Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (U.S. Supreme Court 1975) (probable-cause determination rights related to pretrial detention)