DOCKET

(5/14/18) --- * New since last report)

Election Issues

Common Cause of Indiana v. Lawson (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) (Filed 10/17)

            This case alleges that a recent Indiana statute violates the federal National Voter Registration Act of 1993 by allowing voters to be purged from voter registration rolls prematurely. The case is pending. A preliminary injunction hearing has been held and we are awaiting a decision.

            ATTORNEY(S):  Jan P. Mensz, Gavin M. Rose, ACLU and other national attorneys,


Valenti v. Secretary of State (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind., Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals) (Filed 8/15)

            The new law that prevents certain sex offenders from entering schools prevents them from voting in-person if their voting place is in a school.  Although the absentee ballot voting law has been amended to allow these persons to vote absentee, absentee voting is not a substitute for in-person voting.  This case alleges an infringement on the right to vote. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendant and we are appealing the decision.  The Seventh Circuit recently entered a decision against us, affirming the district court, and we will not be seeking review and will be closing the case.

            ATTORNEY(S)          Jan P. Mensz, Kenneth J. Falk


Freedom of Speech and Association

Ashley v. Randolph County (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist.) (3/18)

            This case challenges a sign ordinance in Randolph County that prohibits persons in residential areas from having any political or issue-oriented signs in front of their house.  The plaintiff was threatened with legal action for a sign expressing her opposition to the Mayor of Winchester, Indiana.

            ATTORNEY(S):         Gavin M. Rose, Jan P. Mensz


Gohmann Asphalt and Construction v. Cornetta (Clark Superior Court) [Filed 7/08]

            An employer involved in the construction of the I-69 Project is seeking a workplace violence restraining order against a group of environmental protesters.  We represent them in an effort to support their 1st Amendment rights.  We have filed for summary judgment and it was denied and interlocutory appeal was denied. 

            ATTORNEY(S):         Gavin Rose


Harnishfeger v. United States of America (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Indiana; Seventh Circuit [Filed 11/16]

            A former phone-sex operator wrote a short book about her experiences in that job in order to make sure persons were apprised of the predatory nature of some men.  She subsequently obtained a position as an AmeriCorps VISTA volunteer placed with the Indiana National Guard (as a civilian).  When her superiors at the Indiana National Guard discovered her authorship of the book, she was first removed from her placement with the Indiana National Guard and then terminated from participation in the VISTA program.  We filed a lawsuit on First Amendment grounds against both the state and federal officials responsible for these decisions.  The defendants have moved to dismiss the case, and we have sought summary judgment.  The district court recently dismissed the case and we are appealing the case to the Seventh Circuit.

            ATTORNEY(S):         Gavin Rose; Jan Mensz


May v. Ames (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 2/18]

            Mr. May drove by a State Trooper who was giving a ticket to a motorist and gave the Trooper “the finger.” The Trooper pursued May and gave him a ticket for “provocation.” The ticket chare was eventually dismissed and this action has been filed alleging a violation of Mr. May’s First Amendment rights.

            ATTORNEY(S):         Kenneth J. Falk., Jan P. Mensz


Sweeney v, Commissioner, Indiana Department of Correction (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Indiana [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 has certified the case as a class action and a preliminary injunction hearing has been scheduled for June 15.

            ATTORNEY(S):         Kenneth J. Falk, Jan P. Mensz


S.B. v. Seymour Community Schools (Indiana Court of Appeals) [Appeal Filed 10/17]

            This is an appeal of a protective order issued against a man who was prohibited by the order from engaging in a solitary protest, with a sign, in front of school buildings.  The ACLU did not handle the protective order trial but is representing the appellant in the appeal. The Court of Appeals recently affirmed the protective order and a petition for rehearing has been filed.

            ATTORNEY(S):         Kenneth J. Falk


Young v. City of Fort Wayne, Indiana (U.S. Dist. Ct. No. Dist. of Ind.) [filed 12/17)

            This is a challenge to a Fort Wayne ordinance prohibiting amplified noise that can be heard more than 50 feet away. A preliminary injunction hearing was recently held and we are awaiting a decision.

            ATTORNEY(S):         Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin M. Rose, Jan P. Mensz


Voices United v. Carmel Clay Schools, et al. (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist.) [filed 03/14]

            Voices United is a student club at Carmel High School that wishes to post a pro-choice banner in the school cafeteria.  The School’s regulations prohibit clubs from posting advocacy messages in the cafeteria, but the School granted an exception to a pro-life group after the group threatened a lawsuit.  The School’s refusal to grant a similar exception to Voices United constitutes viewpoint discrimination and is presumptively unconstitutional.  The ACLU requested a preliminary injunction and that has recently been denied. We have voluntarily dismissed the case and the matter will be closed.

            ATTORNEY(S):         Jan P. Mensz, Kenneth J. Falk


LGBT ISSUES

Higgins v. Corizon, Inc. (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [ACLU appeared 11/17]

This was a pro se case for an injunction and damages filed by a transgender prisoner challenging the failure to provide her with hormone therapy pursuant to the alleged DOC policy of not providing hormone therapy to prisoners who did not receive the therapy prior to their incarceration.  We entered our appearances for the prisoner and the matter is pending.

         ATTORNEY(S):         Kenneth J. Falk, Jan P. Mensz


J.A.W. v. Evansville Vanderburgh School Corp. (U.S. Dist. Ct. –So. Dist. of Ind. [2/18]

            J.A.W. is a transgender high school student who identifies as male and is being denied the ability to use male restrooms in the schools. We are awaiting the scheduling of a preliminary injunction hearing.

            ATTORNEY(S):         Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin M. Rose, Jan P. Mensz


Loveday v. Commissioner, Indiana Department of Correction (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 11/17)

            The plaintiff is a transgender prisoner who alleges that the failure of the DOC to provide hormone therapy violates the 8th Amendment. The case challenges the articulated policy of the DOC of not providing hormone therapy to prisoners who did not receive the therapy prior to their incarceration. The matter is being successfully resolved.

            ATTORNEY(S):         Jan P. Mensz, Kenneth J. Falk


Miscellaneous

Gillenwater v. City of Jeffersonville (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist.) (2/18)

            The plaintiff owns property in Jeffersonville and a house on the property was in disrepair.  While the plaintiff was in negotiations with a non-profit organization interested in purchasing and renovating the house, the City of Jeffersonville decided that it should be destroyed as an unsafe building.  However, the only notice that they provided of their intent to do so was provided to the vacant house, and not to the plaintiff’s separate residential address.  As a result, the plaintiff did not appear at a scheduled hearing and, in his absence, an order issued for the house to be demolished and it has since been demolished.  The case alleges that this is a violation of procedural due process.

            ATTORNEY(S):         Gavin M. Rose


Hope v. Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Correction (U.S. Dist. Ct. – S.D. Ind.) [Filed 10/16]

            In a 2009 case the Indiana Supreme Court held that requiring an individual to register as a sex offender when the person committed his or her offense prior to the time the law had imposed the registration obligation violated the Indiana Constitution’s prohibition on ex post facto punishments.  Nonetheless, the Indiana Supreme Court holds that it does not violate the state constitutions to require persons to register if they were previously required to register in another jurisdiction.  Two of the three plaintiffs were convicted in Michigan and then moved here; and the third was convicted in Indiana, moved to Texas for a period of time, and then returned.  If any of them had been convicted in Indiana and never left the state, they would not be required to register.  The case alleges that requiring them to register due to their travel between states violates the due process right to interstate travel and equal protection.  It also alleges that requiring them to register violates the federal constitution’s ex post facto clause.  We received a preliminary injunction and summary judgment is being pursued.

            ATTORNEY(S):         Gavin M. Rose; Jan P. Mensz


M.H. v. Northeast Dubois County School Corp. (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist.) [1/18]

            Plaintiff is a junior who has been denied the ability to go onto school grounds – although she has not been expelled or suspended and is being given internet-based education – because she engaged in expressive activities deemed to be threatening violence by the school corporation. She was not provided due process prior to the exclusion. The case alleges that this violates due process – both procedural and substantive – as well as the First Amendment. A preliminary injunction has been sought.

            ATTORNEY(S):         Kenneth j. Falk, Jan P. Mensz


Rice v. Commissioner, Indiana Department of Correction (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [12/17]

            This case raise issues identical to the Hope case noted above, and has been consolidated with that case.

            ATTORNEY(S):         Gavin M. Rose; Jan P. Mensz


Prisoners’ Rights

Fugate v. Martin, et al. (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist.) (Rec’d appointment 5/16)

            At the request of the District Court we have accepted appointment to represent the plaintiff in this case who has numerous complaints concerning medical treatment issues.  As required under Indiana law, the medical malpractice claims have been submitted to a panel of doctors appointed by the Indiana Department of Insurance, and the plaintiff has filed its initial submission and responsive submissions will be made in the coming months.  The IDOI has issued a decision that is favorable to plaintiff, in part and the case is proceeding.

            ATTORNEY(S): Jan P. Mensz, Kenneth J. Falk, private attorney Mark Sniderman


Hos v. Vigo County Sheriff (Vigo Superior Court) [Filed 8/13]

            As part of a settlement entered into in 2002 the Vigo County Sheriff and Commissioner agreed to a population cap of 268 on the Vigo County Jail and agreed that prisoners should be allowed recreation 3 times a week. The population has greatly exceeded that amount and prisoners are not getting the requisite amount of recreation. This is a breach of contract action filed in state court to require the defendants to comply with the contract.

            ATTORNEY(S):         Kenneth J. Falk


*Huerta v. Ewing (U.S. Dist. Ct.—So. Dist. of Indiana) [ALCU 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 will be sought.

            ATTORNEY(S):          Kenneth J. Falk, private counsel Michael Sutherlin


Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services Commission v. Commissioner, Indiana Department of Correction (U.S. Dist. Ct.—So. Dist. of Indiana)

            This case challenges the continued confinement of seriously mentally ill prisoners by the Department of Correction in segregated or extremely isolated prison environments.  The case is brought on behalf of Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services which is charged by federal law for advocating on behalf of the mentally ill.  We have added prisoners and class has been certified and we are moving forward.  The case was tried in July of 2011 and the trial court recently ruled in plaintiffs’ favor, finding that the treatment of these seriously mentally ill prisoners violates the 8th amendment.  A final settlement has been negotiated and has been allowed to go into effect.  The case remains open for monitoring.

            ATTORNEY(S):         Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin Rose, Jan P. Mensz attorneys from Indiana             Disability Rights


Rhoton v. Brown (J.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [appointed 3/18]

            We have accepted appointment in this case filed by a prisoner who alleges that institution policies regarding the delivery of legal mail and filing with the court denied him his access to the courts in violation of the First Amendment.

            ATTORNEY(S):         Kenneth J. Falk


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.  A motion to dismiss has been filed by the defendants and was denied.  The case has been settled and is open for monitoring.

            ATTORNEY(S):         Kenneth J. Falk


Religious Freedoms and Establishment Clause

Freedom from Religion Foundation v. Concord Community Schools (U.S. Dist. Ct. – N. Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 10/15]

            Each year, Concord High School stages several performances of a “Christmas Spectacular,” which includes many songs celebrating the holiday season performed by various classes and groups from the school’s performing arts department.  The event then concludes with a 20-minute live nativity scene and scriptural reading telling the story of the birth of Jesus Christ.  We represent an organization, a student enrolled at the school, and the father of that student in challenging this portion of the Christmas Spectacular as violating the Establishment Clause. A preliminary injunction was granted, although partial summary judgment was granted in favor of the defendants based on a revised program.  Partial summary judgment on the remaining issues was then granted in our favor, and the earlier program was declared unconstitutional and the plaintiffs were awarded their nominal damages.  Both parties have appealed to the Seventh Circuit and argument was heard in October. The Court ruled in our favor concerning the earlier program but ruled that the most recent Spectacular was constitutional.

            ATTORNEY(S): Gavin M. Rose; Sam Grover and Ryan Payne (Freedom From Religion Foundation); Heather Weaver and Dan Mach (ACLU-National)


Glenn v. Liebel (Marion Superior Court) [Filed 7/16]

            We previously represented the plaintiff, a prisoner, in a federal case that resulted in a private settlement agreement allowing him and other Eastern Orthodox adherents at Wabash Valley Correctional Facility to meet for worship and study. The case alleges that defendants have breached that agreement and seek its enforcement. The trial court has recently entered judgment in our favor.

            ATTORNEY(S):           Kenneth J. Falk


Jones v. Commissioner, DOC (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of In.; Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals) [filed 10/16]

            This case, brought by a Muslim prisoner, challenges the failure of the DOC to provide a halal diet with halal meat.  The district court entered judgment in plaintiff’s favor and the matter has been appealed to the Seventh Circuit.

            ATTORNEY(S);         Kenneth J. Falk, Jan P. Mensz


Tyler v. Commissioner, DOC (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist.) [Filed 1/17]

            Much like the Glenn case above, this case challenges the failure to allow Eastern Orthodox prisoners to have time for both communal worship and study each week.  The matter is pending. Summary judgment has been filed.

            ATTORNEY(S):         Kenneth J. Falk, Jan P. Mensz


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) [Filed 4/16]

            This case challenges various aspects of HEA 1337, including the prohibition on obtaining abortions for certain reasons and the requirement that women seeking abortion services be informed of these prohibitions as part of Indiana’s so-called “informed consent” process. The law also requires that the fetal tissue that is a byproduct of an abortion or miscarriage in a clinic be disposed of in the same was deceased humans. The district court entered a decision in plaintiffs’ favor and the State has appealed. The Seventh Circuit recently ruled in our favor and the State has asked for rehearing before the entire Court (rehearing en banc). That request is pending.

            ATTORNEY(S); Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin M. Rose, Jan P. Mensz, Jennifer Dalven (National ACLU), Helene Krasnoff (National Planned Parenthood)


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) [Filed 7/16]

            This case challenges another provision of HEA 1337 that requires that ultrasound examinations be performed at least 18 hours before the abortion, as opposed to prior law that allowed the examinations to occur at the time of the abortion.   This will negatively impact the ability of women to obtain abortions and in light of recent Supreme Court precedent is an unconstitutional undue burden. A preliminary injunction hearing was issued and the matter is being appealed by the State. Argument was held in the Seventh Circuit in early November. We are awaiting a decision.

            ATTORNEY(S); Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin M. Rose, Jan P. Mensz, Jennifer Dalven (National ACLU), Jennifer Sandman (National Planned Parenthood)


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) [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 recently granted and the State is appealing the portion of the preliminary injunction prohibiting it from enforcing the parental-notice requirement.  Argument was held in the Seventh Circuit on January 5. We are awaiting a decision.

            ATTORNEY(S); Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin M. Rose, Jan P. Mensz, and attorneys from the national ACLU and Planned Parenthood.


*Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc. v. Commissioner, Indiana State Department of Health (U.S. Dist. Ct – So. Dist. of Ind) [Filed 4/18]

            This case challenges to provisions of Indiana’s 2018 abortion law, which requires medical providers to report “all abortion complications.” As of August 31. 2019, failure to file the report is a crime. However, the law goes into effect on July 1, 2018, and failure to comply can lead to disciplinary consequences for doctors and administrative consequences for Planned Parenthood. The term “abortion complication” is defined so broadly and uncertainly that it is impossible to know what is or is not an abortion complication. Examples are given in the law, but many of the examples are not complications associated with abortions or are normal, transient, side effects of abortion. The provision is being challenged both on due process and equal protection grounds. Additionally, the law requires that abortion clinics be inspected annually for licensure, as opposed to hospitals and ambulatory surgical centers that can be inspected every other year. A preliminary injunction is being sought.

            ATTORNEY(S); Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin M. Rose, Jan P. Mensz, and attorneys from the national ACLU and Planned Parenthood
 

Rights of Those with Disabilities and Medicaid

Ashby v. Warrick County School Corp. (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Indiana; Seventh Circuit) [filed 9/16]

            Mycal Ashby is a person with a physical disability and is confined to a wheelchair. Her child was in the school choir that conducted its Christmas program at a site that was not accessible.  She has sued for damages claiming that his violates federal laws prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of disability status.  The district court entered summary judgment in favor of the school corporation and the plaintiff is appealing the case. It is set for oral argument in the Seventh Circuit on June 1.

            ATTORNEY(S):         Kenneth J. Falk, Jan P. Mensz


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


Caylor v. Indiana Family and Social Services Administration (Fayette Superior Court) [Filed 10/12]

The plaintiff is a serious disabled adult who requires constant care and supervision, and receives services through the Medicaid waiver program to receive this care and supervision.  As a result of new service limitations that are being imposed on waiver recipients, the plaintiff’s services have been dramatically reduced.  The lawsuit alleges that this violates the ADA, as well as state and federal Medicaid law.  This case presents the same issue as the Smith case and the Chickadaunce case below.  The case has been stayed pending a resolution to the Chickadaunce case.

            ATTORNEY(S):          Gavin Rose, Nicole Goodson (private attorney)


Chickadaunce v. Minott (U.S. Dist. Ct.—So. Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 8/13]

            The plaintiffs are three individuals who are enrolled in a home-and-community-based Medicaid waiver program in Indiana.  They have been assigned by the State to a category of individuals that require 24/7, or almost 24/7 care.  However, the State has promulgated limits on services that are far lower than this level of care.  The lawsuit challenges these service limits as violative of the Medicaid Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.  The plaintiff class has been certified, and summary judgment was filed.  This case presents the same issue as presented by the Smith and Caylor cases.  The case has now been stayed as the agency contemplates making changes to its waiver program.

            ATTORNEY(S):         Gavin Rose


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


Hizer v. Pulaski County, Indiana (U.S. Dist. Ct. – No. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 12/16]

            This case, brought as a class action, challenges the lack of accessibility of the Pulaski County Courthouse as violating the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act.

A favorable settlement has been reached, subject to approval of the Court after notice to the class.

            ATTORNEY(S):         Kenneth J. Falk, Jan P. Mensz


Hizer v. United States Postal Service (U.S. Dist. Ct. – No. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 12/17]

            This case challenges the fact that the post office in Winamac is not accessible to persons with mobility impairments in alleged violation of federal law. The case is pending.

            ATTORNEY(S):         Jan P. Mensz, Kenneth J. Falk


Jackson v. Secretary of the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 11/15]

            This is a putative class action that challenges the failure of the Indiana Medicaid program to provide recipients with Harvoni, the new drug that cures Hepatitis C unless and until they reach the later stages of the disease.  After the drug was provided to our named plaintiff, we intervened with a new plaintiff.  The case is pending.

            ATTORNEY(S):         Gavin M. Rose; Kenneth J. Falk


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


New Horizons Rehabilitation, Inc. v. State of Indiana (U.S. Dist. Ct. — So. Dist. of Ind.) [filed 3/16]

            After resolving the issues noted above with the City of Lawrenceburg, New Horizons was informed by the State of Indiana that it had to submit detailed plans for the supported living home and meet state-imposed requirements.  None of these requirements are imposed on other single-family dwellings that house nuclear families. The case alleges that this violates federal laws and equal protection. The district court entered a preliminary injunction in favor of plaintiff. The State did not appeal the preliminary injunction ruling and the case is proceeding.

              ATTORNEY(S):       Kenneth J. Falk, Jan P. Mensz


Romero-Ruvalcava v. Indiana Department of Correction (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist.) (1/18)

            The plaintiff is a former DOC prisoner who is blind. While incarcerated at the New Castle Correctional Facility he was tested and found eligible to participate in an educational program that, if completed, would have led to a time cut.  However, after passing the preliminary test he was told that because he was blind he could not attend the program because the DOC prisoner did not provide tools for visually impaired persons for this program. The case alleges that this violates the Rehabilitation Act, 20 U.S.C. § 701, et seq,

            ATTORNEY(S):         Kenneth J. Falk, Jan P. Mensz


Smith v. Indiana Family and Social Services Administration (Monroe Circuit Court) [Filed 10/12]

The plaintiff is a serious disabled adult who requires constant care and supervision, and receives services through the Medicaid waiver program to receive this care and supervision.  As a result of new service limitations that are being imposed on waiver recipients, the plaintiff’s services have been dramatically reduced.  The lawsuit alleges that this violates the ADA, as well as state and federal Medicaid law.  A motion for preliminary injunction has been filed.  This case presents the same issue as the Caylor case and the Chickadaunce case above.  The case has been stayed pending a resolution to the Chickadaunce case.

            ATTORNEY(S):         Gavin M. Rose


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

Gutierrez v. City of East Chicago (U.S. Dist. Ct. – No. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 3/16]

            This is a challenge to the policy of the Housing Authority of East Chicago of conducting warrantless searches and inspections of tenants’ apartments without cause or consent, including some searches that are clearly for criminal investigatory purposes.  A preliminary injunction was issued in plaintiff’s favor and we have sought summary judgment.

            ATTORNEY(S):         Jan P. Mensz, Kenneth J. Falk


Jerger v. Blaize (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist.) (2/18)

            This case challenges the DCS investigation into the parents of a 2-year-old child with epilepsy.  After the child was prescribed a medication to control her seizures, the parents did independent research to discover the potential side-effects of that medication, and subsequently decided to use natural remedies first even though they ultimately placed their child on the medication.  When DCS investigated the complaint, they required a blood draw from the child even though she had already been placed on the medication.  The case alleges that DCS’s investigation violates due process and that the blood draw violates the Fourth Amendment. The defendants have moved to dismiss the case.

            ATTORNEY(S):         Gavin M. Rose
 

Lopez-Aguilar v. Marion County Sheriff’s Department (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So/ Dist. of Ind., Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals) [Filed 9/16]

            The plaintiff appeared in court for a traffic citation when he was informed by a sheriff’s deputy that federal immigration officials (ICE) had been looking for him earlier in the day.  He was therefore held at the Marion County Jail overnight at which point he was transferred into ICE custody.  The case alleges that he was unconstitutionally arrested.  The parties proposed a settlement to the Court, although the United States has objected to that settlement because it would prohibit the Marion County Sheriff’s Department from taking certain actions in assistance of federal immigration enforcement. The district court approved the settlement. After the district court approved the settlement the State attempted to intervene in the case. This motion was denied and now the State is appealing.

            ATTORNEY(S):         Gavin M. Rose; Jan P. Mensz

Stay informed

ACLU of Indiana is part of a network of affiliates

Learn more about ACLU National