Legal
Legal Docket
Click on the subjects below for more information:
Church and State
top ^
Disability Rights
AMT v. Murphy (U.S. District Court – Southern District) [Filed 3/09]
In this case we represent a potential class of serious disabled children who are on Medicaid. They receive physical, occupational, respiratory and/or speech therapy to assist with their disabilities. The therapies are being denied because of a State policy that limits the therapies for 2 years and that does not pay for “maintenance therapy.” The case is proceeding.
ATTORNEY(S): Gavin M. Rose
Dick v. Indiana Family and Social Services Administration (Marion County Superior Court) [Filed 07/09/10]
The ACLU of Indiana has filed a new lawsuit in Indianapolis challenging the manner in which grocery allowances are computed for individuals enrolled in Indiana’s Developmental Disabilities Medicaid Waiver Program. Seriously disabled persons enrolled in that program are permitted a small grocery allowance each month, although the amount of the allowance has not been adjusted or administratively reviewed in at least six (6) years. For those waiver enrollees who are also enrolled in the Food Stamp program, however, the amount of the grocery allowance is reduced dollar-for-dollar by the amount of any Food Stamp allotments. The result of this, therefore, is that while Food Stamp payments are adjusted regularly to account for increases in the cost-of-living, waiver enrollees do not see any alteration in their benefits because their grocery allowances are reduced by the exact same amount. The plaintiff alleges that this reduction violates federal Food Stamp law and, to the extent that the policy has not been formally promulgated, violates Indiana administrative law.
ATTORNEY(S): Gavin M. Rose, co-counseled with Steven K. Dick of Tucker Hester, LLC
Blade v. City of Richmond (U.S. District Court, Southern District) [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. District Court- Southern District) [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
Chadwell v. Indiana Family and Social Services Administration (Clay Superior Court) [Filed 8/08]
This is a challenge to the policy of the Family and Social Services Administration of reducing the amount of hours for such things as attendant care hours available to persons receiving waiver services through the Medicaid program. Waiver services are designed to provide aid to persons to prevent them from needing to move into nursing homes. The trial court has entered summary judgment in our favor and the State is appealing.
ATTORNEY(S): Gavin M. Rose, Jacquelyn Bowie Suess
Culvahouse v. City of Laporte (U.S. Dist.Ct.-Northern District) [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 issue of how quickly the City brings itself into compliance with the ADA remains to be resolved and the parties are entering into a settlement.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk
Magers v. Roob (Allen Superior Court) [Filed 1/07]
This is a challenge to a policy of the Division of Mental Health within the Indiana Family Social Services Administration that prevents developmentally disabled persons who have been committed to mental health institutions after being found mentally incompetent to stand trial from being placed into group homes or other lesser restrictive alternatives, even if the placements are recommended by treatment staff. The Court entered judgment against plaintiffs and a motion to correct errors is pending.
ATTORNEY(S): Gavin M. Rose, Kenneth J. Falk
Targett v. City of Brazil (U.S. District Court- Southern District) [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 has recently been 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, Jacquelyn Bowie Suess
top ^
Equal Rights
top ^
Free Speech
C.S., et al., v. Fort Wayne Community Schools (U.S. district Court for Northern Indiana) [Filed 6/30/10]
This is a challenge to the practice of the Fort Wayne Community Schools of allowing a release time religious program to operate on school premises during instructional hours.
ATTORNEY(S): Ken Falk
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
top ^
Immigrant Rights
top ^
Prisons and Prisoners Rights
Arnaout v. Warden (U.S. District Court − Southern District) [Filed 6/09]
This is a challenge to the refusal of the authorities to allow Muslim prisoners confined to the Communications Management Unit at the Federal Correctional Institution in Terre Haute to engage in congregate five times a day prayer. Summary judgment motions will be filed in the near future.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk
Averhart-Bey v. Commissioner, Indiana Department of Correction (U.S. District Court - Southern District) [Filed 6/08]
This case challenges the failure of the Indiana Department of Correction to allow prisoners who follow the Shia branch of Islam to meet separately to celebrate holidays of particular significance to Shia Muslims. The matter is pending although a settlement is being worked on.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk
Benkahla v. Jett (U.S. District Court – Southern District) [Filed 6/09]
We are serving as local counsel with the ACLU’s National Prison Project on this case which challenges the lawfulness of the Communications Management Unit at the Federal Correctional Institution in Terre Haute. The suit alleges that the unit was opened without compliance with the federal Administrative Procedures Act.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk
Campbell v. Commissioner, Indiana Department of Correction (U.S. District Court – Southern District) [Filed 12/08]
This is a challenge to the DOC’s alleged policy of opening and reviewing outgoing legal mail outside of the presence of the prisoner. This violates the First Amendment.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk
Carr v. Warden, FCI Terre Haute (U.S. District Court-Southern Dist.) [Filed 7/10]
Like the Aranout case listed above, this is a challenge to the failure of the federal prison in Terre Haute to allow congregate prayers for Muslim prisoners confined in the Communications Management Unit.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk
Clark v. Buss (U.S. District Court- Southern Dist. of Indiana) [filed 3/09]
This case challenges the constitutionality of the Department of Correction’s program for dealing with sex offenders which requires that the prisoners admit all past violations without providing immunity. If the prisoners refuse they lose good time credit. It is alleged that this violates the 5th amendment. Summary judgment has been filed.
ATTORNEY(S): Jacquelyn Bowie Suess, Kenneth J. Falk
Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services Commission v. Commissioner, Indiana Department of Correction (U.S. District Court- Southern District 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 y added prisoners and class has been certified and we are moving forward. It is set for trial in July of 2011.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin M. Rose, attorneys from Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services
Johns v. DOC (Marion Superior Court) [filed 8/09]
Mr. Johns was a plaintiff in a lawsuit that we filed a number of years ago that asked that the DOC provide kosher diets. The case was settled with a private settlement agreement under which the DOC agreed to provide Mr. Johns with a kosher diet. Kosher diets have now been discontinued and this is a breach of contract action. We have filed summary judgment. The case is being settled in the plaintiff’s favor.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk
Meisberger v. Donahue (US District Court – Southern District) [Filed 7/06]
This is a class action challenge to the new DOC policy designed to keep all material, written and pictorial, with a sexual content out of DOC institutions. The trial court denied the State’s motion to dismiss and certified a class. A proposed settlement has been reached and we are giving notice to the class.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk
Miles v. Buss (U.S. Dist. Ct. – Southern District ) [Filed 1/09]
This is a challenge to the DOC’s failure to allow members of the a particular religious sect to meet together for worship and study. The case was recently filed.
ATTORNEY(S): Gavin M. Rose, Kenneth J. Falk
Olson v. Brown (Tippecanoe Superior Court) [Filed 1/09]
This case challenges the alleged practice and policy of the Tippecanoe County Sheriff of interfering with legal mail, denying reasonable access to the law library, and failing to properly respond to grievances. Claims are made under the First Amendment and Indiana law. The case was dismissed by the trial court and the Seventh Circuit ruled in our favor, reversing the dismissal. The Sheriff filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court which was denied. The case will now move forward.
ATTORNEY(S): Gavin M. Rose, Kenneth J. Falk
Richardson v. Monroe County Sheriff (U.S. Dist.Ct. – Southern District) [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
Schepers v. DOC (U.S. Dist. Court – Southern District of Indiana) [Filed 10/09]
This is a class action challenge to the failure of the DOC to have any sort of procedure for persons to challenge factually erroneous listings on the Sex and Violent Offender registry. A class has been certified and we will be filing a motion for summary judgment if the case is not settled.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk
Thomas v. Roob (Marion Superior Court, Indiana Court of Appeals) [filed 2/08]
This case challenges the constitutionality of placing persons found to be incompetent to stand trial at a state institution, despite the fact that there are available lesser restrictive alternatives that would be beneficial to the person. The trial court has ruled against us and an appeal is being taken to the Indiana Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals has recently affirmed the trial court and ruled against us. Rehearing has been denied and we have sought transfer.
ATTORNEY(S): Gavin M. Rose, Kenneth J. Falk
Tyson v. Grant County Sheriff (United States District Court-Northern District of Indiana)[filed 1/07]
This case challenges the overcrowded conditions in the Grant County Jail. The case was settled with a private settlement agreement and we are monitoring.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk
Veal v. Comissioner, Indiana Department of Correction (United States District Court- Southern District of Indiana) [filed 10/08]
This is a challenge to the failure of the Department of Correction to allow imprisoned members of the African Hebrew Israelite religion to meet together to worship at Pendleton Correctional Facility. The matter is pending.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk
Willis v. DOC (United States Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Indiana) [Am. Comp. filed 8/09]
This is a class action that challenges the DOC’s decision to terminate all kosher diets and to replace them with non-kosher vegetarian diets. Summary judgment will be filed in the near future.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk
Woods v. Commissioner, Indiana Department of Correction (United States District Court- Southern District of Indiana) [filed 12/08]
This is a First Amendment challenge to the DOC’s policy that prohibits prisoners from advertising for or soliciting pen-pals, although prisoners may communicate with pen-pals if they acquire them. Cross motions for summary judgment have been filed.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk
top ^
Police Practices
Coats v. Indiana Department of Correction (U.S. District Court) [Filed 4/09]
This is an action brought by a man who was erroneously listed on the sex offender registry. Damages and an injunction are sought. A motion to dismiss has been denied and a motion for summary judgment has been filed.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk
Dellantonio v. City of Indianapolis (U.S. District Court - Southern District) [Filed 6/08]
This case challenges, as violative of the ADA, the questions concerning mental health issues and the evaluation and assessment process imposed on persons applying to take the Indiana bar examination. The student chapter of the ACLU at IU-Indianapolis law school has been added as an additional plaintiff. The case is proceeding towards summary judgment.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Jacquelyn Bowie Suess, Gavin M. Rose
Doe v. City of Greenwood (Johnson Superior Court) [filed 5/07]
This case challenges a Greenwood ordinance that prohibits sex offenders and persons convicted of certain drug and prostitution related offenses from entering Greenwood’s parks. The case alleges that the ordinance violates various provisions of the Indiana Constitution. The matter has been stayed pending the appellate decision in Doe v. Town of Plainfield.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk
Doe v. Town of Plainfield (Hendricks Superior Court, Indiana Court of Appeals, Indiana Supreme Court) [Filed 11/05]
This case challenges the ordinance in Plainfield, Indiana, which prohibits all persons on the state sex offender registry from entering any of the parks in Plainfield. The case is based solely on the Indiana Constitution. The trial court denied the plaintiff the right to proceed by anonymous name and this issue has been appealed to the Indiana Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals ruled in plaintiff’s favor and the Indiana Supreme Court denied transfer. The case was remanded to the trial court which entered judgment in Plainfield’s favor. The Court of Appeals recently entered its decision in favor of Plainfield and we have sought transfer in the Indiana Supreme Court.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, William Harrington
Dowdell v. City of Jeffersonville (Clark Superior Court, Indiana Court of Appeals) [Filed 7/07]
This case challenges a sex offender ban from the City of Jeffersonville’s parks. The trial entered summary judgment for the City and we are appealing the case. Oral argument was conducted in the Court of Appeals in early May.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk
Fields v. Buss (U.S. Dist Ct –So.Dist. of In)
This case challenges the constitutionality of the Department of Correction’s program for dealing with sex offenders which requires that the parolees admit all past violations without providing immunity. If the parolee refuses he or she may be returned to prison. It is alleged that this violates the 5th amendment. Summary judgment motions have been filed.
ATTORNEY(S): Jacquelyn Bowie Suess, Kenneth Falk
Gibson v. Indiana Department of Correction (Marion Superior Court, Indiana Court of Appeals, Indiana Supreme Court) [Filed 8/07]
This case challenges the constitutionality of the new “violent offender” registry that requires persons convicted of murder or voluntary manslaughter to register in the same way, and on the same registry, as sex offenders. A preliminary injunction was sought and denied and the matter was appealed and is fully briefed in the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals ruled against us and we sought transfer in the Indiana Supreme Court. It has been denied and the case is back in the trial court. The trial court has indicated that it will be entering a judgment that the statute is unconstitutionally retroactive as applied to persons who committed their violent offenses prior to the time the law went into effect.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin M. Rose
Greer v. Donahue (Marion Superior Court) [Filed 1/08]
Some sex offenders are required to register for 10 years. This case challenges the practice of having the ten years for these offenders begin anew if they commit another offense, that is not a sex offense, after the ten years expires. The trial court entered judgment for the defendants and the matter is being appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed and ruled in our favor. We sought fees which have been received and the case will be closed.
ATTORNEY(S): Gavin M. Rose, Kenneth J. Falk
top ^
Religion & the Government
H.S. v. Huntington County Comm. School Corp. (U.S. Dist.Ct. – No. Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 11/08]
This case challenges the fact that the school corporation allows a release time religious program to operate during school hours in a trailer on school property. The Magistrate Judge has recommended that a preliminary injunction be entered and the matter is pending before the district court.
ATTORNEY(S): Jacquelyn Bowie Suess
Indiana Atheist Bus Campaign v. Bloomington Public Transportation Corp. (U.S. District Court – Southern District) [Filed 5/09]
This case challenges the policy under which the bus company denied the Atheist Bus Campaign permission to post an ad stating “YOU CAN BE GOOD WITHOUT GOD.” The policy allows the bus company to refuse “controversial” advertising.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk
Workman v. Greenwood Community Schools (United States District Court – Southern District of Indiana) [filed 3/10]
This is a challenge by a high school senior to Greenwood’s High School practice of having the seniors vote on whether to have a student-led graduation prayer and then having such a prayer at graduation. The case was set for a preliminary injunction hearing on April 30, 2010 and the Court granted the motion. We are attempting to reach a settlement of the remaining issues.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin Rose
top ^
Reproductive Rights
Fort Wayne Women’s Health v. Health Commissioner, Fort Wayne-Allen County Health Department (U.S. Dist. Court- No. Dist.) [Filed 6/10]
This action is brought on behalf of an abortion provider and the clinic he owns to challenge a Fort Wayne Ordinance regulating “Itinerant Medical Providers.” The case argues that the Ordinance violates Indiana’s Home Rule statutes and is unconstitutional. It is set for a preliminary injunction hearing in August.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Center for Reproductive Rights
top ^
Rights of the Poor
Bailey v. Sullivan (U.S. District Court, Southern District; Seventh Circuit) [Filed 2/94; most recent contempt filed 9/06]
This is an old case that has been reopened for contempt. It challenges the failure of the State to properly determine Medicaid eligibility. The trial court found that the defendants are not in contempt and the case is being appealed to the Seventh Circuit and was argued in March.
ATTORNEY(S): Gavin M. Rose, Jacquelyn Bowie Suess
BN v. Murphy (U.S. District Court- Northern District) [Filed 3/09]
This is a challenge to the policy of the Family and Social Services Administration of reducing the amount of hours for respite hours available to persons receiving waiver services through the Medicaid program. Waiver services are designed to provide aid to persons to prevent them from needing to move into nursing homes. Summary Judgment has been filed.
ATTORNEY(S): Gavin Rose
City of Indianapolis v. Byrd (Marion Superior Court) [Filed 6/08]
The ACLU is representing a group of homeless persons who were ticketed for allegedly violating an Indianapolis ordinance as they slept and sat underneath a bridge near the downtown area. An action has been filed challenging the ordinance, and the matter is pending.
ATTORNEY(S): Gavin M. Rose; Jacquelyn Bowie Suess
Curtis v. Roob (Marion Superior Court, Indiana Court of Appeals) [Filed 7/07]
This case challenges the failure of Administrative Law Judge’s to accept supplemental evidence in Medicaid hearings. The case was dismissed by the trial court and plaintiffs appealed. We prevailed on the appeal and on remand we won and the state is appealing again.
ATTORNEY(S): Gavin M. Rose, Jacquelyn Bowie Suess
Ely v. Roob (Marion Superior Court) [Filed 3/08]
This case challenges the new Medicaid policy of scheduling telephone hearings for appeals. The trial court has entered summary in our favor and the State is appealing the case.
ATTORNEY(S): Gavin M. Rose, Jacquelyn Bowie Suess
Gibson v. Roob (Marion Superior Court, Indiana Court of Appeals) [Filed 3/08]
This case challenges the constitutionality and legality of the policy of the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration whereby individuals are denied or terminated from public benefits programs such as Medicaid and Food Stamps for allegedly “failing to cooperate” in establishing their eligibility for the programs. The trial court denied certification of one of the classes in the case and we are seeking interlocutory relief on this while the rest of the case goes forward. We have filed for summary judgment and we lost the interlocutory appeal on class. The trial court has recently entered summary judgment partially in our favor and partially in the State’s favor. We are appealing.
ATTORNEY(S): Gavin M. Rose, Jacquelyn Bowie Suess
Richardson v. Perkins (U.S. Dist. Court – Southern District) [Filed 11/09]
This is a case for damages and an injunction brought by three homeless persons who challenge Indianapolis employees who seized and destroyed their possession without providing notice or a procedure to challenge the seizures or to obtain a return of their property. We are working on a potential settlement.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk
Thornton v. Hamilton (United States District Court- Southern District of Indiana) [Filed 11/02, most recent contempt on 8/07]
This is a challenge to the delays in processing Medicaid applications. A favorable settlement has been negotiated. Contempt has been filed because of the State’s non-compliance and another settlement was reached. A new contempt motion has been filed and the case has been set for review by the Court.
ATTORNEY(S): Jacquelyn Bowie Suess, Gavin M. Rose
top ^
Students’, Childrens’ and Parents’ Rights
T.M. v. Rowe (U.S. District Court-Southern District of Indiana) [Filed 3/09]
The plaintiff challenges the discipline imposed on him in school. The discipline consisted of forced standing, in one place, for the entire school day, except for 2 brief bathroom breaks and lunch which he was required to eat standing.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk
C.H. v. Payne (U.S. District Court, Southern District) [Filed 12/09]
This case challenges the 10% cut that the Indiana Department of Child Services has made in foster care maintenance payments and adoption subsidies for special needs children. The trial court has entered a preliminary injunction in plaintiffs’ favor and the Department is appealing this. However, the parties are working on a settlement.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin M. Rose
P.C. v. Director, Department of Child Services (U.S. Dist. Ct. – Southern Dist.) [Filed 3/10]
This case is a companion to, and raises many of the same issue as, the C.H., case on behalf of special needs children and their adoptive parents who adopted the children since January 4, 2010. The parties are working on a settlement.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin Rose
TV v. Smith-Green Community School Corp. (U.S. Dist. Ct. –Northern District of Indiana [Filed 10/09]
This is a challenge brought by two high school students who were disciplined by their school corporation because of “inappropriate” photos on their MySpace pages, even though this all took place during summer vacation and had no impact on school whatsoever. Damages are sought for the plaintiffs and injunctive relief for the plaintiffs. The trial court recently denied our request for class certification. Summary judgment will be filed.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk
top ^
Voting Rights
ACORN v. Murphy (U.S. District Court − Southern District) [Filed 7/09]
We are serving as local counsel in this case which challenges the failure of the State of Indiana to comply with federal law concerning the dissemination and distribution of voter registration information to public assistance recipients.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk. Gavin M. Rose
top ^
MISCELLANEOUS
Boatman v. Murphy (U.S. District Court, Southern District) [Filed 2/10]
This is a class-action challenge to the failure of the State’s Medicaid office to provide a mechanism whereby individuals involved in Medicaid waiver programs may request services in excess of, or different from, those proposed by their case manager. Recently the Court has certified the case as a class action.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk
City of Indianapolis v. Henby (Marion Superior Court) [Filed 7/09]
We are representing two street performers who have been cited for violating a Marion County Ordinance prohibiting the use of sidewalks for private purposes.
ATTORNEY(S): Gavin M. Rose
Doe v. Individual Members of the Indiana State Board of Law Examiners (U.S. Dist. Court – Southern District) [filed 7/09]
This case challenges, as violative of the ADA, the questions concerning mental health issues and the evaluation and assessment process imposed on persons applying to take the Indiana bar examination. The student chapter of the ACLU at IU-Indianapolis law school has been added as an additional plaintiff. The case is proceeding towards summary judgment.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk.
Gorman v. Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development, et al. [filed 6/11/10] The This is a class action challenge to the failure of Indiana to timely resolve unemployment appeals in violation of federal law.
ATTORNEY(S): Gavin M. Rose
Leone v. BMV (Marion Superior Court, Indiana Court of Appeals) [Filed 2/08]
This is a challenge to the BMV’s termination of licenses and identification cards for persons whose names on their BMV and Social Security records do not match. A preliminary injunction hearing was denied and the case is on appeal. We lost 2-1 in the Court of Appeals. However, the Indiana Supreme Court has accepted transfer and the case was argued in December of 2009. We are awaiting a decision.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk
Murray v. Murphy (Marion Superior Court) [Filed 2/09]
This is a contempt action that has been filed challenging the State’s non-compliance with an earlier agreement to issue decisions on Medicaid disability appeals within 90 days of the request. Settlement has been agreed to and has been approved and an agreement has been reached on our attorneys’ fees.
ATTORNEY(S): Gavin M. Rose
top ^
