ACLU of Indiana, Indiana Protection & Advocacy Services Announce Settlement with Department of Correction
Agreement with DOC marks fundamental, systemic change in the treatment of seriously mentally ill prisoners.
Indianapolis –A long-running class action lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana and the Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services Commission against the Indiana Department of Correction has been settled with a proposed agreement that awaits approval by the Court after notice to the class. If approved the agreement will fundamentally transform the way seriously mentally ill prisoners are treated in state correctional facilities. The changes will affect hundreds, if not thousands, of prisoners in Indiana who will receive better access to mental health care and who will no longer be held without treatment in solitary confinement.
The agreement prohibits, with some exceptions, the confinement of seriously mentally ill prisoners in restrictive status housing or protective custody (i.e., solitary confinement). As a general rule, no prisoner who is seriously mentally ill will be placed into restrictive housing. The agreement uses a definition of severe mental illness that includes people who entered solitary with less than severe mental illnesses but whose mental health has deteriorated due to solitary. And, the agreement provides for “minimum adequate treatment” for these prisoners, which includes:
- An individualized treatment plan created by a team consisting of mental health professionals and correctional staff who are familiar with the prisoner, reviewed at least every 90 days
- 10 hours each week of therapeutic programming, which includes individual and group therapy
- Recreation and showers
- Additional therapy and out-of-cell time where possible and appropriate
The agreement also stipulates that prisoners in restrictive housing will receive frequent monitoring of their mental health status and needs by mental health personnel, including daily visits by correctional and medical staff during each shift to make sure their mental health does not worsen. In addition, any prisoner with a mental health diagnosis in restricted housing will be visited at least once a week by mental health personnel and offered monthly out-of-cell monitoring by a mental health professional.
“The Indiana Department of Correction has made extraordinary efforts to address the treatment of severely mentally ill prisoners in its care. The DOC has increased both correctional staffing and mental health staffing and is largely already in compliance with the settlement agreement,” said Ken Falk, ACLU of Indiana legal director. “We fully anticipate this cooperation will continue and that these changes will have a significant positive impact by reducing the severity of mental illness in prisoners who will one day rejoin society.”
“As a result of this litigation, prisoners with mental illness have more opportunities for treatment than ever before. This case opened the door to more positive outcomes for up to 5,600 people with a mental health diagnosis currently in Indiana prisons,” said Dawn Adams, Executive Director of IPAS. “IPAS will remain actively engaged in the work of protecting the rights of people with mental illness by monitoring the changes at IDOC facilities. This case, once again, underscores the importance of access to care for people with mental illness and highlights the need for reform in our mental health system.”
In 2012, the ACLU of Indiana and IPAS prevailed in a lawsuit against the DOC filed in 2008 on behalf of IPAS and three individuals who represented a class of inmates with serious mental illnesses. Judge Tanya Walton Pratt of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana ruled that the DOC, which had been placing seriously mentally ill prisoners in isolation with little or no access to treatment, violated Eighth Amendment prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment. Inmates subjected to these conditions faced significant worsening of symptoms and illness, including hallucinations, increased paranoia and depression, self-harm and suicide.
At the time of Judge Pratt’s 2012 ruling, the court ordered that the parties try to work out a final resolution to the case. Since then the ACLU and IPAS have been working with the DOC to reach a comprehensive agreement that has vastly improved conditions of confinement for inmates with serious mental illnesses.
Following the Court’s 2012 decision, the DOC opened up the new Pendleton Treatment Unit/INSIGHT Unit (Intent on Shaping Individual Growth with Holistic Treatment) for the care of some seriously mentally ill prisoners. The 250-bed unit will accommodate many prisoners formerly held in isolation. Seriously mentally ill prisoners may also be housed in special needs units at the Indiana Women’s Prison, Wabash Valley Correctional Facility and in the New Castle Psychiatric Facility.
The private settlement agreement, Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services Commission, et al., v. Commissioner, Indiana Department of Correction, Case No. 1:08-cv-01317-TWP-MJD, was filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana Indianapolis Division on Jan. 27, 2016. Attorneys on the case include Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin M. Rose and Jan P. Mensz, ACLU of Indiana and Melissa L. Keyes and Thomas E. Crishon, Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services.
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Prisoners' Rights
Criminal Law Reform
ACLU Sues Bureau of Prisons for Keeping People in Prison Longer Than the Law AllowsACLU Sues Bureau of Prisons for Keeping People in Prison Longer Than the Law Allows
WASHINGTON – A federal lawsuit brought today by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of D.C., and Jenner & Block LLP challenges the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) for unlawfully incarcerating people longer than the law allows under the First Step Act. The lawsuit contends that the BOP’s failure to implement the First Step Act according to its plain language violates the rights of thousands of people who should be returning to their communities and rebuilding their lives but instead remain incarcerated. Signed into law in 2018 by then-President Donald Trump, the bipartisan First Step Act was designed to reduce the population in federal prisons, reform extreme sentencing laws, and provide programming and reentry transition services to people in prison. Central to the First Step Act is a system of earned time credits, which allows people in prison to earn time off their sentences and time out of prison by participating in rehabilitation programs. Through the First Step Act, Congress unambiguously ordered BOP to move people out of prison when they meet certain requirements to use their earned time credits. Instead of faithfully following the mandatory law, BOP adopted a regulation treating the law as optional. As a result, thousands of people, who should already be back in their communities and with their families, remain in prison. “Every extra unlawful day our clients spend in prison is a serious injustice,” said Emma Andersson, deputy director of the Criminal Law Reform Project at the ACLU. “It is egregious that the Bureau of Prisons is imprisoning people for months longer than the law allows. The government must follow through on its legal obligation to get people out of prison on time and back into their communities, where they belong.” Additional comments below from: Vanessa Crowe, plaintiff: “Time is what I owed for my wrongdoing, and I have paid my time. But I should not have to spend more time in prison than the law allows. I often reflect on what I will miss during the months after when I should be out of prison. I will miss work and lose out on wages that would help me get back on my feet. I could be a tax paying citizen instead of a burden on society. But most of all, I will miss more precious time with my family. My family and I are ready to tum the page on this period in our lives — we are all ready to start a new life, a life with purpose, hope, and healing together. I want to start that life when I am legally entitled to start it-not five months later.” Arthur Spitzer, senior counsel at ACLU of D.C.: “There’s no excuse for the Bureau of Prisons to pretend not to understand Congress’s clear command that people who have earned the right to early release must be released. This law has been on the books for six years. The Bureau of Prisons has had plenty of time to understand it. Law enforcers should obey the law.” Betsy Henthorne, partner at Jenner & Block: “It has been six years since the First Step Act was signed, but despite Congress’s clear directives, the Bureau of Prisons continues to hold thousands of people in prison longer than the law allows. We should and do expect better—it’s past time for the BOP to ensure that those who have earned their release are able to return home to their families and communities according to the law Congress passed.” -
Press ReleaseSep 2024
National Security
Prisoners' Rights
ACLU Statement on Senator’s Discriminatory Questioning of Civil Rights Leader Maya BerryACLU Statement on Senator’s Discriminatory Questioning of Civil Rights Leader Maya Berry
WASHINGTON — American Civil Liberties Union Executive Director Anthony D. Romero, released the following statement regarding Sen. John Kennedy’s questioning of Maya Berry, the executive director of the Arab American Institute: “The American Civil Liberties Union condemns this discriminatory and vitriolic attack on Maya Berry, a renowned civil rights leader, and joins the chorus of voices from across the political spectrum in denouncing these remarks. “To use a hearing about the disturbing rise in anti-Muslim, anti-Arab, and antisemitic hate crimes to launch personal and discriminatory attacks on an expert witness they’ve invited to testify is both outrageous and inappropriate. This kind of racist rhetoric should be widely condemned. It has no place in Congress, or in politics. “Maya Berry is a courageous and compassionate leader who has spent her entire career working to strengthen our democracy and protect the rights of Arab American communities, and other vulnerable communities who face discrimination and targeting because of their ethnicity, race, or religion.” -
Ohio Supreme CourtSep 2024
Prisoners' Rights
State v. MorrisState v. Morris
This case in the Ohio Supreme Court concerns the scope of the state constitutional right to counsel. The police in this case interrogated the defendant, Isaiah Morris, without mentioning his already-appointed counsel or asking him to waive his right to counsel. This procedural circumstance risks confusing criminal defendants and undermining their state constitutional rights. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Ohio and WilmerHale, filed an amicus brief arguing that merely providing a defendant notice of Miranda rights falls short of the bare minimum requirements for a valid waiver. -
Oregon Supreme CourtSep 2024
Prisoners' Rights
Huskey v. Oregon Department of CorrectionsHuskey v. Oregon Department of Corrections
This case in the Oregon Supreme Court centers on whether Article I, Section 41(3) of the Oregon Constitution, which provides that Oregon prisoners lack legally enforceable rights to prison jobs and training, bars prisoners from collecting damages relating to lost prison jobs and training caused by the alleged breach of a settlement agreement by prison officials. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Oregon, filed an amicus brief arguing that that plaintiff Arnold Huskey, an incarcerated individual whose identity was used in Department of Corrections training materials, is entitled to damages notwithstanding Article I, Section 41(3), because plaintiffs in contract disputes never have to show standalone legal rights to the damages they claim. Instead, they need only show that the damages were reasonably foreseeable consequences of the alleged breach of contract.