Legal
Legal Docket
Click on the subjects below for more information:
Church and State
top ^
Disability Rights
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 and 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. The trial court has entered a preliminary injunction in our favor and the matter is pending.
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 and the case is awaiting a decision.
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 State’s Motion to Dismiss was denied and the case is proceeding.
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
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 is pending.
ATTORNEY(S): Gavin Rose
top ^
Immigrant Rights
Roe (Villegas) v. Coleman (Marion Superior Court, Indiana Court of Appeals, Indiana Supreme Court) [Filed 8/02]
This is a class action challenge to the new license requirements enacted by the Bureau of Motor Vehicles. The matter is pending although the case has been amended and is now entitled Villegas v. Coleman. The trial court entered summary judgment for the BMV and the matter has been appealed The Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled in our favor and found the new license requirements were unlawful because they were not promulgated. Rehearing was sought and was denied as was transfer. The trial court has now entered judgment and has awarded us attorneys’ fees. The State is appealing the award of fees. The Court of Appeals ruled in our favor on the appeal. The Indiana Supreme Court has denied a request for transfer.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Rafael Ramirez, Richard Shevitz
top ^
Prisons and Prisoners Rights
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
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
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.
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.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin M. Rose, attorneys from Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services
Mast v. Donahue (United States District Court - Southern District) [Filed 1/05]
This case challenges the constitutionality of confining mentally ill prisoners in the Secured Housing Unit (SHU) at Wabash Valley Correctional Facility. This is the most secure facility in Indiana and it features conditions which are extremely harmful to persons who are mentally ill. Discovery is proceeding. The case has been settled and attorneys fees have been paid. It is open for monitoring.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, David Fathi [ACLU Prison Project]
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.
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 trial court has certified a class of all the prisoners in the Jail and the case is moving forward.
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.
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
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. The matter is pending.
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. An injunction was sought. The case may be amended.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk
Dellantonio v. City of Indianapolis (U.S. District Court - Southern District) [Filed 6/08]
This case alleges that the City of Indianapolis has policies and practices that target homeless persons by, among other things: stopping persons from asking for money even though such requests do not violate Indiana law, requiring homeless persons to show their identification without cause or suspicion, unlawfully destroying the property of homeless persons. The matter is pending.
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.
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.
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.
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
top ^
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. The trial court has entered a preliminary injunction in our favor and the matter is pending.
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 the case has been remanded to the trial court.
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 matter is pending.
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.
ATTORNEY(S): Gavin M. Rose, Jacquelyn Bowie Suess
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.
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
top ^
Voting Rights
top ^
MISCELLANEOUS
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. The case has been heard by the Court of Appeals on oral argument and we are awaiting a decision.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk
top ^
