DOCKET
last updated: 4/17/2024
* = New case since last report
Freedom of Speech and Association
Andrews v. Jonesboro, Indiana (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. Of Ind.) [Filed 9/2023]
The City of Jonesboro has blocked the plaintiff from both its official Facebook page and the official Facebook page of the Jonesboro Police Department. This occurred after the plaintiff made critical comments. The plaintiff was allowed back on the official page and the police department page became a private page run by officers. Given this we could not go forward and the case was dismissed. The matter will be closed.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor
Bilbrey v. Sproles (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 7/23)
After posting a critical comment, Kristopher Bilbrey was “blocked” from a Facebook page operated by Henry County Sheriff John Sproles. Although the page was originally created as a “candidate page,” since Sheriff Sproles took office in January of 2023 he has routinely utilized the page to post official governmental communications. The lawsuit alleges that the blocking of Mr. Bilbrey violates his First Amendment rights.
ATTORNEY(S): Gavin M. Rose
Easley v. Town of Kingsford Heights, Indiana (U.S. Dist. Ct. – Nor. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed June 2023]
The Town Council of Kingsford Heights, Indiana (a small town in LaPorte County) operates an official private Facebook “group” through which it posts information about its activities (including proposed ordinances and notices of council meetings) as well as other information of relevance to town residents. Because this group is “private,” Facebook users must request and receive permission to join the group. The Town has removed persons from the group, including our two clients, based on the fact that they have made statements critical of the Town’s leadership. The complaint alleges that this violates the First Amendment. A favorable settlement has been reached, and this case will be closed.
ATTORNEY(S): Gavin M. Rose
Evans v. Commissioner, Indiana Dep’t of Corr. (U.S. Dist Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 12/23]
DOC policy requires that persons in photographs that are sent to prisoners, either in the mail or electronically, be dressed in a manner that meets the dress code requirements imposed on in-persons visitors. So photos of persons in tank tops or children in pajamas are rejected. The complaint alleges that this violates the First Amendment.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor
Nicodemus v. City of South Bend, Ind. (U.S. Dist. Ct. – No. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 8/23]
This is a First Amendment challenge to the new statute, Ind. Code § 35-44.1-2-14, that makes it a crime to come within 25 feet of a law enforcement officer after the officer has ordered the person to stop. The law contains no requirement that the officer have any reason to issue such an order and contains no standards. The district court found that the statute was constitutional and the matter has been appealed to the Seventh Circuit.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin M. Rose, Stevie J. Pactor
Smiley v. Jenner (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Indiana; 7th Circuit Court of Appeals) [Filed 6/23]
This is a challenge to a portion of House Enrolled Act 1608, effective July 1, 2023, that prohibits schools and teachers from engaging in “instruction” on “human sexuality” to students who are pre-K through third grade. Our lawsuit, brought on behalf of a teacher, argues that the law is both unconstitutionally vague and violative of the First Amendment. The Court denied our request for a preliminary injunction and the matter is being appealed to the 7th Circuit and was argued in February of 2024. We are awaiting a decision.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin M. Rose, Stevie J. Pactor
Sweeney v. Commissioner, Indiana Department of Correction (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Indiana; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit [Filed 10/17]
This case challenges a new policy of the DOC that requires that all incoming non-legal correspondence be in plain white envelopes and requires that the correspondence “be on originally purchased, plain white, lined paper (no photocopies).” The case alleges that this violates the First Amendment. The Court certified the case as a class action and entered a preliminary injunction for the plaintiffs. The DOC dismissed its appeal of the preliminary injunction, and the reached a settlement. The district court found that the settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate as required of class actions. The case remains open for monitoring.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk
P.S. v. R.S. (Ind. Ct. App.) [filed 9/23]
This appeal challenges a protective order proceeding that resulted in dismissal of the requested protective order against our client but where the trial court ordered that the parties not communicate or threaten each other in any way, even on social media. This is a broad order that violates the First Amendment. The Court of Appeals recently entered a not-for-publication decision ruling in our favor and reversing the trial court’s order. The matter will be closed.
ATTORNEY(S): Stevie J. Pactor, Kenneth J. Falk
Unshackled Hearts, Inc. v. Howard County Sheriff (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed June 2023]
Unshackled Hearts, Inc. is a nonprofit prison ministry that, among other things, provides books—some religious in nature but other not—to incarcerated persons throughout Indiana. The Howard County Sheriff has imposed a series of policies that have restricted the organization’s ability to do so. After first banning inmate receipt of books entirely, the Sheriff subsequently settled on banning books unless they are sent directly from a formal publisher (such as Simon & Schuster), although it does not allow books sent directly from a formal distributor (such as Amazon). This severely restricts both the types of books that may be sent and the ease and efficiency with which they can be sent. The complaint alleges that this violates the First Amendment and, insofar as Unshackled Hearts views its operations as an exercise of its own religion, Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The case has been resolved and the challenged policy has been amended. This case will be closed.
ATTORNEY(S): Gavin M. Rose
LGBTQ ISSUES
A.C. v. Metropolitan School District of Martinsville et al (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. Of Ind., Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals) [12/21]
The plaintiff is a transgender boy who, when we filed the case, was attending a middle school within the Metropolitan School District of Martinsville. He has been diagnosed with and receives treatment for gender dysphoria. He wishes to use male facilities in the school He has been required to use either the girls’ restrooms or the single-person restroom in the nurse’s office. The district court granted a preliminary injunction and the school district has appealed to the Seventh Circuit. This appeal has been consolidated with the appeal of the B.E. case. The Seventh Circuit issued a ruling for us in August and the school filed for certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court, which the Supreme Court denied in January. The matter has now been sent back to the district court for further proceedings. The plaintiff is now a student at Martinsville High School.
ATTORNEYS: Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor, Megan Stuart from Indiana Legal Services
BE & SE v. Vigo County School Corp. et al (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. Of Ind.) [11/21]
The plaintiffs are transgender boys who, at the time of the filing of the case, were freshmen who attend Terre Haute North Vigo High School. They have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria, prescribed hormones, have legally changed their names, and have legally changed the gender markers on their birth certificates. Nonetheless, the school will not allow them to use male restrooms or locker rooms, and requires that they either use the girls’ restrooms or the only single-occupancy restroom in the school, which is located in the nurse’s office. Indiana Legal Services is co-counseling the case. The district court granted a preliminary injunction and the matter was appealed and has been joined with the A.C. case. The Seventh Circuit issued a joint ruling in our favor in August. The school system did not seek certiorari. The case is back in the district court and has been set for a settlement conference.
ATTORNEYS: Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor; Megan Stuart and Kathleen Bensberg from Indiana Legal Services
Cordellioné v. Commissioner, Indiana Department of Correction (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [8/23]
This case challenges the new statute, Ind. Code § 11-10-3-3.5(a) [eff. 7/1/23], that bans transgender prisoners within the Indiana Department of Correction from receiving gender-affirming surgery. A preliminary injunction hearing was held on March 26 and we are awaiting a decision.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin M. Rose, Stevie J. Pactor
*Allison v. Commissioner, Indiana Department of Correction (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [4/24]
This is another challenge by a transgender prisoner against the statutory ban on the Indiana Department of Correction from receiving gender-affirming surgery.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin M. Rose, Stevie J. Pactor
*Wallace v. Commissioner, Indiana Department of Correction (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [4/24]
Yet another challenge by a transgender prisoner against the statutory ban on the Indiana Department of Correction from receiving gender-affirming surgery.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin M. Rose, Stevie J. Pactor
K.C. v. Individual Members of the Medical Licensing Board (U.S. Dist. Ct.—So. Dist. of Ind) [Filed 4/23]
This is the challenge to the transgender health ban (S.E.A. 480). The district court has entered a preliminary injunction preventing the law from going into effect. The State has appealed the decision and the case was argued in February in the 7th Circuit. Although the panel has not yet issued a decision, shortly after the argument it issued a stay of the district court’s injunction, putting the law back into effect. The State had not asked for this stay, the panel did it on is own, which is extremely unusual. We have asked the panel to reconsider the stay, which it refused to do by a 2-1 decision. We now have asked the active members of the 7th Circuit to review the stay and that is pending. In the meantime the law is in effect and gender-affirming hormones can no longer be provided to minors. Additionally, the aiding and abetting provision of the law, also back in effect, prohibits doctors and other practitioners from referring their patients for care out-of-state or even discussing their former patients with out-of-state practitioner seeking to assist the youth.
ATTORNEYS: Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin M. Rose, Stevie J. Pactor
From National ACLU: Chase Strangio, Harper Seldin
R.F. v. Batesville Community School Corp. (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 4/23]
R.F. is a transgender male high school student who was scheduled to room with other boys during a band trip. At the lasts minute he was not allowed to stay with other boys. The case alleges that this differential treatment violates both Title IX and equal protection.
ATTORNEYS: Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor
Miscellaneous
St-Hilaire v. Commissioner, Indiana BMV [U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.] [Filed 8/23]
When the federal government decides that “significant public benefit or urgent humanitarian reasons” justify allowing the entry into the United States of a noncitizen, it may grant entry through a program known as “humanitarian parole.” An individual on humanitarian parole does not obtain a formal immigration status but is allowed entry into the United States and may obtain employment authorization to work here. In recent years, the United States has authorized the entry of numerous Ukrainian national, Cuban nationals, Haitian nationals, Nicaraguan nationals, and Venezuelan nationals under this program due to the conditions in their country. During the 2023 legislative session, the Indiana General Assembly extended the ability to obtain an Indiana driver’s license or identification card (or to register or title vehicles) to certain persons on humanitarian parole—but only if they are from Ukraine. We represent five Haitian nationals who would greatly benefit from the ability to obtain a driver’s license or identification card but who cannot do so because they are from Haiti rather than Ukraine. The complaint alleges that this constitutes national-origin discrimination in violation of equal protection and Title VI, and that Indiana’s classification of noncitizens is preempted by federal law. We were awarded a preliminary injunction against the discriminatory law in January, and the State has appealed that injunction. In the meantime, the Indiana General Assembly amended the law to provide that no parolees, including Ukrainians, may obtain licenses. We have asked that the State’s appeal be sent back to the district court and are evaluating our options. The matter is pending.
ATTORNEY(S): Gavin M. Rose, Stevie J. Pactor, Kenneth J. Falk and attorneys from the National Immigration Law Center
Prisoners’ Rights
Miami “dark cell” cases (U.S. Dist. Ct. – No. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed at different times in 2021]
These cases involve prisoners who were confined in restrictive housing (segregation) cells at Miami Correctional Facility that did not have working lights and where the windows were covered with sheet metal. Many of the cells had live wires hanging from where the fixtures had been and in some of the cases prisoners were shocked by the wires. We are seeking compensatory and punitive damages. The first-filed case was Blanchard, followed by those also listed below, all in the Northern District of Indiana. The cases are pending.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor
• Anderson v. Hyatte (Filed 7/21)
• Blanchard v. Hyatte (Filed 3/21)
• Bennett v. Hyatte (Filed 7/21)
• Boes v. Hyatte (Filed 9/21)
• Brisker v. Hyatte (Filed 11/21)
• Campbell v. Hyatte (Filed 12/21)
• Carter, T. v. Hyatte (Filed 9/21)
• Carter, C. v. Hyatte (Filed 11/21)
• Duckworth v. Hyatte (Filed 10/21)
• Hackner v. Hyatte (Filed 8/21)
• Jackson v. Hyatte (Filed 1/22)
• Lukes v. Hyatte (Filed 8/21)
• Calvin Lyons v. Hyatte (Filed 8/21)
• Charles Lyons v. Hyatte (Filed 7/21)
• Maxwell v. Hyatte (Filed 7/21)
• Mitchell v. Hyatte (filed 9/22)**
• Nur v. Hyatte (Filed 10/21)
• O’Neal v. Hyatte (Filed 8/21)
• Owen v. Hyatte (Filed 10/21)
• Parish v. Hyatte (Filed 7/21)
• Priscal v. Hyatte (Filed 3/22)
• Pryor v. Hyatte (filed 7/22)**
• Reed v. Hyatte (Filed 7/21)
• Rodgers v. Hyatte (Filed 7/21)
• Rollins v. Hyatte (Filed 10/21)
• Sapp v. Hyatte (Filed 10/21)
• Sullivan v. Hyatte (Filed 8/21)
• Thompson v. Hyatte (Filed 1/22)
• Wagner v. Hyatte (Filed 7/21)
• Werden v. Hyatte (Filed 11/21)
• Winners v. Hyatte (Filed 2/22)
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor
Copeland v. Wabash County (U.S. Dist. Ct. – No. Dist.) (Filed 2/20)
This is a challenge to the conditions of the Wabash County Jail. A class was certified and the parties have submitted an agreement to the Court containing a schedule that ends with the building of a new Jail. The Court concluded that the private settlement agreement was fair, reasonable, and adequate. The new Jail will be occupied in the near future.
ATTORNEY(S): Stevie J. Pactor, Kenneth J. Falk
Gee v. Warden, New Castle Correctional Facility (U.S. Dist. Ct. -So. Dist. of Ind.) (12/23)
The plaintiff is a prisoner who is alleging a failure to attend to his mental health needs because of chronic staffing deficiencies. He claims a violation of the 8th Amendment. The matter is pending.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor
Huerta v. Ewing (U.S. Dist. Ct.—So. Dist. of Indiana) [ACLU appointed 4/18]
This is a class action lawsuit challenging conditions at the Vigo County Jail, Kenneth Falk has recently been appointed to represent a class consisting of all the prisoners in the Jail and summary judgment has been filed. The district court has entered summary judgment for the prisoners, finding that the conditions in the Jail violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court has scheduled frequently hearings to monitor progress towards building a new jail. The new jail is being built and has opened. However, population issues persist and the Court is keeping the case open.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk
Johnson v. Klyaic et al., (U.S. Dist. Ct. — So. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 6/23]
The plaintiff suffers from severe uterine prolapse, which causes her uterus to at times distend through the opening of her vagina, causing her bleeding and pain. On one occasion when this happened, and she requested to be seen by medical staff, the defendant nurse instructed the correctional officers to look at Ms. Johnson’s prolapsed uterus themselves before permitting Ms. Johnson to come to the infirmary. Those officers required Ms. Johnson to strip naked in the shower area and expose her vagina to them. They then required her to physically manipulate her labia, which were covered in blood, to enable them to get a better view of the prolapsed uterus. She raises claims under the Fourth and Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution, state law torts.
ATTORNEYS: Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor
Johnston v. Howard County Sheriff (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 10/23]
*Warren v. Howard County Sheriff (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 1/24]
These are challenges to the overcrowded and unconstitutional conditions at the Howard County Jail. Class status is being sought.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor
Kadamovas v. Director, Bureau of Prisons et al. (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 1/2023]
This is a putative class action filed on behalf of the inmates being held in the federal death row at the United States Penitentiary at Terre Haute. It alleges that the inmates are being held in extreme isolation in a manner that violates the Eighth Amendment. The case is being co-counseled with lawyers from Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. Injunctive relief is sought on behalf of plaintiff and a putative class. The motion for class certification is pending.
ATTORNEYS: Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin M. Rose, Stevie J. Pactor, co-counsel from Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath
Morris v. Sheriff of Allen County (U.S. Dist. Ct. – No. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 1/20]
This is a challenge to the conditions at the Allen County Jail. A class has been certified, and we have filed a motion for partial summary judgment that the Court held a hearing on just prior to the holidays. The Court recently issued summary judgment in favor of the prisoners, finding that condition in the Jail are unconstitutional, and ordering the defendants to submit a plan as to the short and long-term steps they will take to remedy the constitutional deficiencies that the Court found. The Court has scheduled status conferences to continue to monitor the matter.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor, Samuel Bolinger (cooperating counsel)
Richardson v. Monroe County Sheriff (U.S. Dist. Ct.—So. Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 2/08]
This is a case challenging the conditions at the Monroe County Jail. The case has been settled and is open for monitoring.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk
*Smith v. Armstrong (U.S. Dist. Ct.—So. Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 1/24]
While in the Henry County Jail the plaintiff was required to strip and remove her used tampon in front of the security camera in her cell. Images of the plaintiff’s genitals were taken and were shared by staff with other staff members and prisoners. Staff harassed plaintiff about the appearance of her genitals. This amounts to punishment in violation of due process and also represent Fourth Amendment violations. The case is pending.
ATTORNEY(S): Stevie J. Pactor, Kenneth J. Falk
Stilwell v. Sheriff of Gibson Co. (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Indiana) [filed 2/19]
This case challenges the conditions of confinement at the Gibson County Jail. The case is proceeding. The parties have stipulated to the case proceeding as a class action. A settlement has been reached in this matter that will result in the construction of a new Jail. The matter remains open for monitoring.
ATTORNEY(S): Stevie J. Pactor, Kenneth J. Falk
Religious Freedoms and Establishment Clause
Anonymous Plaintiffs v. The Individual Members of the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana (Marion Superior Court) (Indiana Court of Appeals) [filed 9.22]
This is a challenge to Indiana’s new abortion law, SEA 1(ss), based on a violation of Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The trial court has granted a preliminary injunction to the plaintiffs and class certification, both of which the State appealed. The state requested direct transfer to the Supreme Court, bypassing the Court of Appeals, and that motion was denied. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision in almost all respects in a lengthy decision issued on April 4, 2024. The Court of Appeals affirmed the certification of the class and found that plaintiffs were entitled to a preliminary injunction, but remanded the case to the trial court so it could make clear that the injunction would only apply to plaintiffs obtaining abortions for their sincere religious beliefs. The State has 45 days to seek transfer in the Indiana Supreme Court.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor, Gavin M. Rose
Reproductive Rights
Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc. v. Commissioner, Indiana State Department of Health (U.S. Dist. Ct – So. Dist. of Ind., Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, United States Supreme Court) [Filed 5/17]
This case challenges portions of Senate Enrolled Act No. 404 that amends Indiana law to:
1) provide that in a bypass proceeding where a minor can seek judicial permission to obtain an abortion without parental consent the court can order that notice be provided to the parent; requires physicians to execute an affidavit where a parent consents to a minor’s abortion after receiving a photo id and other unspecified evidence that “a reasonable person under similar circumstances would rely on the information provided . . . as sufficient evidence of [the] identity and relationship” between the minor and parent, and (3) prohibit persons from aiding or assisting an unemancipated minor from seeking an abortion from obtaining one without satisfying the consent or bypass requirements under Indiana law. This last provision would prohibit PPINK from advising minors that they could obtain abortions out of state. A preliminary injunction was granted, and the State is appealing the portion of the preliminary injunction prohibiting it from enforcing the parental-notice requirement. The Seventh Circuit affirmed by a 2-1 decision and rehearing en banc was denied. The State sought review in the United States Supreme Court. On July 2, 2020, the Supreme Court granted certiorari and remanded the case back to the Seventh Circuit for reconsideration in light of June Medical Services. The Seventh Circuit again affirmed the District Court and the State again sought review in the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reversed in light of Dobbs and sent the case back. Following Dobbs the State moved to vacate the preliminary injunction and we have indicated that we have no grounds to oppose the motion. Dobbs doomed the first argument concerning the notice issue and changes to Indiana’s abortion laws meant that we could no longer pursue the vagueness claims concerning the identification requirements, but we continue to pursue the First Amendment issue. Both parties have sought summary judgment on that claim, and these motions are pending.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin M. Rose, and attorneys from the national ACLU and Planned Parenthood.
Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, etc. v. Members of the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana (Monroe Circuit Court; Indiana Supreme Court) [Filed 8/22)
This is the challenge to Indiana’s new abortion law (S.E.A.1[ss]) based on a violation of the Indiana Constitution. The trial court granted a preliminary injunction. The State appealed and the Supreme Court reversed the preliminary injunction on June 30, 2023. However, the reversal leaves open the question of whether the very narrow health care exception in S.E.A. 1 [ss] satisfies the limited state-constitutional right that the Supreme Court recognized. A new injunction has been sought on the grounds that the above-noted health exception is unconstitutionally narrow. The case is set for a trial in May of 2024.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth Falk, Gavin Rose, Stevie Pactor, and attorneys from Wilmer Hale, national Planned Parenthood, and the Lawyering Project
Rights of Those with Disabilities and Medicaid
Blade v. City of Richmond (U.S. Dist. Ct.—So. Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 7/04]
This case challenges the lack of accessible sidewalks in Richmond, Indiana. A settlement has been reached and has been approved by the Court. It is open for monitoring.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk
Cantrell v. Town of Liberty (U.S. Dist. Ct.—So. Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 2/02]
This is a challenge under the ADA to the fact that the Town of Liberty does not have accessible sidewalks. The case has been settled in plaintiff’s favor. It remains open for monitoring as the sidewalks are made accessible.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk
Culvahouse v. City of LaPorte (U.S. Dist. Ct.—No. Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 5/06]
This is a class action challenge to the failure of LaPorte to have sidewalks that are accessible to disabled persons as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act. Both sides have sought summary judgment. The trial court has entered partial summary judgment in plaintiffs’ favor. The parties have entered into a settlement of all remaining issues and the case is open for monitoring.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk
Ellison v. United States Postal Service (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.; Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals) [Filed 3/20]
The case challenges the fact that the Shelbyville post office is not accessible to the client, a person with a physical disability. The district court ruled in favor of the Postal Service and we have appealed the matter to the Seventh Circuit. The Seventh Circuit issued a decision in our favor and the Postal Service has agreed to build the ramp. The case will be kept open until the ramp is built and then will be dismissed.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor
Inspiration Ministries, Inc. v. State of Indiana (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 11/23]
Plaintiff has a number of group homes that are identical in structure to other single-family homes. However, defendant is imposing onerous regulatory requirements that are not required of single-family homes occupied by “regular” families. The case alleges that this violates the Fair Housing Act Amendments, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Injunctive relief is sought.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor
*Behind the Wire Ministries, Inc. v. State of Indiana (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 1/24]
This organization has 2 group homes that like the case immediately above, are not being treated as single-family homes, even though they would be if a nuclear family lived there. The case alleges that this violates the Fair Housing Act Amendments, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Injunctive relief is sought.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor
*Next Step Recovery Home, Inc. v. State of Indiana (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 2/24]
This organization has 1 group home that is being discriminated against in the same way as the above cases. Injunctive relief is sought.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor
*Firebrand Ministries, Inc. v. State of Indiana (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 4/24]
This organization also has 1 group home that is being discriminated against in the same way as the above cases. Injunctive relief is sought.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor
Kirkland v. Indiana Dep’t of Correction [U.S. Dist. Ct. -So. Dist. of Ind.] [Filed 10/23]
Martize Kirkland is an inmate, scheduled to be released at the end of 2025, who as a result of a spinal injury uses a wheelchair to ambulate. In early 2023, he sought transfer to a work-release facility to allow him access to certain re-entry services and to begin working in the community. While he meets the requirements for placement in work release, his request was denied because persons with his “disability code”—which is assigned to persons with ambulatory impairments—are not authorized for placement in any of the DOC’s work-release facilities. The complaint alleges that this violates the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. We have reached a settlement, which includes amendments to the challenged policies, and the case will be closed.
ATTORNEY[S]: Gavin M. Rose
Meeker v. Kosciusko Community Fair, Inc. (U.S. Dist. Ct. – No. Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 9/14]
The client, who is a person with disabilities, challenges the lack of accessibility of the Kosciusko County Community Fair fairgrounds. A settlement has been filed and has been approved. The case remains open for monitoring.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk
Targett v. City of Brazil (U.S. Dist. Ct.- So. Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 8/00]
This case challenges the failure of the City of Brazil to maintain accessible sidewalks in violation of the ADA. Discovery is being done. A settlement was approved. Contempt was filed since it is alleged the City has not complied with the settlement. We entered a new settlement which the City did not comply with and we again sought contempt. The matter was resolved, and we are monitoring.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk
Search and Seizure Issues
Carpenter v. City of Clarksville (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [filed 3/23]
The Town of Clarksville has enacted an ordinance that requires the routine inspection of all rental properties within the Town by the Town’s building commissioner, but does so without requiring a search warrant or similar judicial or quasi-judicial order authorizing the entry or inspection. This case alleges that the ordinance is unconstitutional as violating the Fourth Amendment. We have sought class certification.
ATTORNEYS: Gavin M. Rose
*Felthoff v. Sliger (U.S. Dist. Ct. – No. Dist. of Ind. ) [filed 4/24]
The plaintiff was stopped without cause. He had hydrocodone pills for which he had a prescription and had a firearm for which he had a permit. Nevertheless, he was arrested for possession of a controlled substance with a felony gun enhancement. Criminal charges have never been initiated and his firearm and concealed carry permit have still not been returned. The case alleges that this violates the Fourth Amendment.
ATTORNEY(S): Gavin M. Rose
K.S. v. Milliman (U.S. Dist. Ct. – No. Dist. of Ind.) (Filed 1/24)
K.S. is a 7th grader who was subject to a search when a false report was made that she had a gun, made apparently by a student who had falsely reported in the past. In front of a school nurse and male administrator she was forced to lift up her shirt to show her waist and was forced to lift up her outer garments and pull the bottom of her bra away from her body. The case alleges that this violates the Fourth Amendment.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor
Nwachukwu v. Harruff (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind. [filed 8/23]
Plaintiff was pulled over to be given a warning ticket for driving too close to the vehicle in front of him. The case alleges that there was no cause for the initial stop and that the stop was unlawfully prolonged so that other police could arrive with a dog who police claimed alerted to drugs. This resulted in a search that found nothing, In the meantime he was forcibly handcuffed, causing him pain. The case alleges a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor
*S.H. v. Milleman (U.S. Dist. Ct. – No. Dist. of Ind.) (Filed 1/24)
S.H. is a sophomore who on two occasions was subject to intrusive searches by a male school administrator and a female school nurse to look for a vape. The searches involved, among other things, the student being required to pull out the front of her bra and expose part of her breasts. The case alleges a Fourth Amendment violation.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor
*Watson v. Binford (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) (Filed 4/24)
Plaintiff was arrested for disorderly conduct after swearing at a person who had hit his vehicle. The person was sitting in her car and plaintiff was more than 20 feet way. The charges were dismissed. His speech was protected by the First Amendment and his arrest violated the Fourth Amendment.
ATTORNEY(S): Stevie J. Pactor, Kenneth J. Falk
