DOCKET
last updated: 10/17/2023
* = 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. We allege this violates the First Amendment. The case was only recently filed.
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
Blondell v. Mooresville Consolidated School Corporation (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed Apr. 2023]
Kristen Blondell was an elementary school custodian for the Mooresville Consolidated School Corporation until she was fired in January 2023 for maintaining a page, through which she posted sexually explicit content to a limited number of adult subscribers, through OnlyFans.com. The complaint alleges that her termination violated the First Amendment.
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.
ATTORNEY(S): Gavin M. Rose
Evans v. Commissioner, Indiana Dep’t of Corr. (U.S. Dist Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 5/22]
DOC policy prohibits prisoners from receiving photobooks directly from publishers—bound books of colored photographs. The case argues that this violates the First Amendment. The Court recently entered a decision in our favor and judgment has been entered. We received attorneys’ fees and the matter will be closed.
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. Oral argument concerning the law’s constitutionality was had on October 13 and we are awaiting a decision.
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.
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
*Swaner v. Shaffer (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.
ATTORNEY(S): Stevie J. Pactor, Kenneth J. Falk
The Bail Project v. Commissioner, Indiana Dep’t of Insurance (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit) [Filed 5/22]
This is a challenge to a new Indiana statute, effective July 1, 2022, that severely limits the persons for whom The Bail Project may pay bail and also subjects it to vague and uncertain licensing standards. A preliminary injunction was sought, but was denied. We lost before a panel of the 7th Circuit, 2-1, and we have sought rehearing en banc and that is pending.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin M. Rose, Stevie J. Pactor
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 is pending.
ATTORNEY(S): Gavin M. Rose
LGBTQ ISSUES
AC 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 12-year old boy who attends 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 and to participate on the boys’ soccer team, which he has been denied. 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 system has recent filed for certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court.
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 freshman boys 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 is being appealed and has been joined with the A.C. case. The Seventh Circuit issued a joint ruling in our favor in August with the A.C. case. However, for some reason, as of yet, the school system has not sought certiorari although it has until October 30 to do so.
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.
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 briefing will be completed soon.
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] (this case was mistakenly not listed in the last report
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
Clark v. Commissioner, Indiana Dep’t of Corr. (Marion Sup. Ct.) [Filed 12/22]
To resolve a 2021 lawsuit, the client entered into a settlement agreement with the DOC that states he is to be provided with several volumes of religious texts, with their binding removed. Nonetheless, the Commissioner has refused to abide by the terms of the settlement agreement and refuses to allow the client to have these religious texts. This is an action to enforce the settlement agreement.
ATTORNEY: Kenneth J. Falk
*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 have sought a preliminary injunction and class certification, and these requests remain pending (with a hearing scheduled for November 17th on the preliminary-injunction motion).
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 case will remain open for monitoring.
ATTORNEY(S): Stevie J. Pactor, Kenneth J. Falk
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. Given that a new jail has been built to comply with the judgment in Huerta (below), the parties have jointly moved to dismiss this action. As this is a class action, the motion cannot be granted without a hearing to assess whether this is fair to the class. The case has now been closed.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk
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
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. The plaintiffs are requesting injunctive relief, and the named plaintiff is seeking damages.
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
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
Stillwell v. Commissioner, Indiana Dep’t of Correction (Marion Superior Court) (Indiana Court of Appeals) [Filed 5/22]
The Department of Correction has created a new program concerning prisoners’ ability to earn educational credit that appears to afford many prisoners less opportunity to earn credit time than is allowed by Indiana law. The case, which seeks to be certified as a class action, asserts that the DOC is violating both Indiana law and the Constitution. We have sought a preliminary injunction and class certification. Both motions were denied and the preliminary injunction denial is on appeal in the Indiana Court of Appeals. The client was released from the Department of Correction and the appeal was dismissed and we voluntarily dismissed the case.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor
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, which the State has appealed. The state requested direct transfer to the Supreme Court, bypassing the Court of Appeals, and that motion was denied. The case is in the Indiana Court of Appeals and is fully briefed and set for oral argument in December.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor, Gavin M. Rose
Eiler v. Complex Warden, FCC, Terre Haute (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) (4/23)
This is a challenge by two spiritual advisers to two prisoners on federal death row in Terre Haute. It challenges the defendants’ policy that prohibits the advisors from touching the prisoners while the advisors pray with the prisoners during visits. They also challenge the policy that prohibits them from touching the prisoners in the death chamber at the time of their executions. The matter is pending.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor, Gavin M. Rose
Reproductive Rights
All-Options, Inc. v. Attorney General (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) (5/21)
This is a challenge to, among other things, the Indiana law that would have, as of July 1, 2021, required that abortion providers inform women of the fact that “some evidence” exists that there is an “abortion reversal” treatment for women who take the first of the two-pill regimen for a medication abortion and would have informed women how they could avail themselves of that treatment. The district court entered a preliminary injunction on June 30, preventing the law from going into effect. The Court found that the plaintiffs had made the required showing that the disclosure was not truthful and was misleading. Following Dobbs and changes to Indiana’s abortion laws, the case was dismissed by agreement of the parties and will be closed.
ATTORNEYS: The Lawyering Project, National ACLU, National Planned Parenthood, Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin M. Rose, Stevie J. Pactor
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. The case is being remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
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
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
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 case was argued in the 7th Circuit in March of 2023 and we are awaiting a decision.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor
Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services Comm’n v. Indiana Family and Social Services Administration (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.; Seventh Circuit) [Filed 5/22]
This is a challenge to the failure to move persons found incompetent to stand trial in their criminal cases into placements where they can receive competency restoration services. As a result, they are required to languish in county jails in violation of their due process rights. The district court denied our request for a preliminary injunction. This ruling was appealed, but the appeal has been dismissed due to a change in circumstances. The case is proceeding in the district court.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin M. Rose, Stevie J. Pactor and attorneys from Indiana Disability Rights
*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 sought a preliminary injunction.
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
Smith v. Indiana Family and Social Services Administration (Monroe Circuit Court) [Filed 10/12]
The plaintiff is a seriously 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
*A.C. v. McCann (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [filed 9/23]
The case alleges that when he was in 5th grade he was required to strip and show his bare buttocks to a school social worker and nurse on two occasions. The case alleges that the second time was in the presence of his classmates. A violation of the Fourth Amendment or, alternatively, due process, is claimed.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor
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
Freeman v. Pickens (U.S. Dist. Ct. – No. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 3/23]
This case challenges searches of plaintiff’s home that took place where the defendant police officers had an arrest warrant, but not a search warrant. The case is proceeding.
ATTORNEYS: Stevie J. Pactor, Kenneth J. Falk
Gregory v. City of Warsaw, et al. (U.S. Dist. Ct. – No. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 11/22]
This is a challenge to law enforcement officers’ warrantless entry into and search of the clients’ home and the seizure of one client during that entry. Law enforcement officers entered the home because they believed the chief of police’s daughter might be inside attending a party. (She wasn’t.) The clients have requested declaratory relief and damages. The matter was recently settled and will be closed.
ATTORNEYS: Stevie J. Pactor, Kenneth J. Falk
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. In the meantime, plaintiff has sought contempt sanctions against the Housing Authority for violating the preliminary injunction. Contempt was found. The matter has been successfully settled and we are monitoring compliance with the settlement.
ATTORNEY(S): Gavin M. Rose, Kenneth J. Falk
*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
Owen v. Taylor (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [filed 3/23]
This is a lawsuit arising out of a traffic or investigatory stop by an officer employed by the Evansville Police Department. Our client, who drives for Uber, was parked legally with the engine running late in the evening near several bars in downtown Evansville. She was then stopped by a police officer, purportedly because she was parked in front of a bank (albeit legally), and, when she refused to provide her identification insofar as she had done nothing wrong, was ordered out of the vehicle and patted down. When she continued to refuse to provide requested documentation, she was cited for driving without insurance (even though she was insured), her car was towed, and she was left on the street in sub-freezing temperatures to wait for a ride. This action alleges that her Fourth Amendment rights were repeatedly violated. We reached a settlement agreement and the case has been dismissed and will be closed.
ATTORNEY(S): Gavin M. Rose
