List of all Litigation: March 14, 2016

 *New since last report

Children's Rights

Arthur v. Director, Central Eligibility Unit, Indiana Department of Child Services(U.S. Dist. Ct., So. Dist. of Indiana) (filed 10/15)

This is a case filed by grandparents and the severely disabled grandchildren who they wish to adopt. They have been foster parents for the children and are now seeking to adopt them. The children are wards of the Department of Child Services and the Department is severely cutting the assistance amounts paid for the children if they are to be adopted. The case alleges that this violates Title IV-E of the Social Security Act. A favorable settlement has been negotiated.

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

Price v. Department of Child Services (Marion Superior Court, Indiana Court of Appeals) (filed 7/15)

This is a class action case brought by a case manager for the Department of Child Services alleging that the Department has allowed caseloads to rise far in excess of mandatory state standards. The trial court granted the State's motion to dismiss and the matter is being appealed.

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

Due Process and Fair Hearing Rights

Rebirth Christian Academy Daycare, Inc. v. Indiana Family and Social Services Administration (U.S. Dist. Ct. — So. Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 07/12, our appearance 10/12]

The plaintiff in this case was registered as an unlicensed child care ministry in order to provide child care services under Indiana law. This registration was terminated by the State, although the plaintiff was never afforded an opportunity to have a hearing or to contest the factual allegations made by the State. The original complaint was filed by a private attorney, and we filed an amended complaint alleging that this violates due process and seeking both an injunction and damages. A motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. We received partial summary judgment and we are appealing the issue we lost. The case is pending in the Seventh Circuit after oral argument.

ATTORNEY(S): Gavin Rose

State v. Montes (Marion Superior Court) (our appearance 10/15)

This is a civil forfeiture proceeding brought against our client after his arrest. Charges were eventually dismissed. The matter is being settled.

ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk

United States v. Bowser(U.S. Dist. Ct., So. Dist. of Indiana, Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals)[our appearance 6/15]

This is a high profile criminal case against several members of the Outlaws Motorcycle Club. After several defendants pled guilty, the United States initiated civil forfeiture proceedings against, among other things, all items at several addresses containing the insignia of the Outlaws. However, these items are not owned by the criminal defendants but by the collective membership of the Outlaws. Nonetheless, the United States did not give notice to the Outlaws before the items were forfeited. We represent Bradley Carlson, who is recognized by the Outlaws as responsible for maintaining these items. He filed pro se a motion to have the district court set aside the orders of forfeiture, which was denied. We have appeared in order to represent him in an appeal of that order, which is proceeding to the Seventh Circuit. The matter is pending in the Seventh Circuit after oral argument.

ATTORNEY(S): Gavin Rose 

Election Issues

Common Cause of Indiana v. Indiana Secretary of State (U.S. Dist. Ct. — So. Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 11/12]

Indiana law provides that each major political party nominates exactly ½ of the number of Superior Court judges to be elected at the general election. This means that when a person is confronted with the list of judicial candidates there are the exact same nominees as there are positions. This case alleges that this unique system violates the First Amendment right that voters have to exercise a meaningful vote. The district court entered judgment in plaintiff's favor, striking the law down as unconstitutional. The Seventh Circuit recently affirmed the district court by a 3-0 decision. The State is not appealing the case and it remains open to resolve our claim for attorneys' fees and costs.

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

*Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services Commission v. Indiana Secretary of State (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) (Filed 2/16)

This is a challenge to an Indiana statute that appears to restrict the ability of residents of a state psychiatric institution from gaining residency in the precinct where the institution is located. The case was recently filed.

ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin M. Rose, and attorneys from Indiana

Protection and Advocacy Services

Valenti v. Secretary of State (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) (Filed 8/15)

The new law that prevents certain sex offenders from entering schools prevents them from voting in-person if their voting place is in a school. Although the absentee ballot voting law has been amended to allow these persons to vote absentee, absentee voting is not a substitute for in-person voting. This case alleges an infringement on the right to vote.

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

Freedom of Speech and Association

Benson v. Commissioner(U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist of Indiana) [Filed 6/15]

Mr. Benson is a prisoner who contests his guilt. The DOC has in place methods of electronic communication for prisoners and the outside world. The methods include video-chats, e-mail, and videograms (30-second videos). Mr. Benson sent a videogram to his sister thanking his supporters for their support as he approached a court hearing. His sister posted the video on Facebook. In response the DOC punished Mr. Benson by, among other things, taking away good time and putting him in segregation for a period of time. The DOC vacated the punishment and we are now suing for damages and an injunction to make sure this does not happen again. A favorable settlement has been negotiated.

ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk

*Brady v. Individual Members of the Indiana State Board of Nursing (Marion Superior Court) [Filed 2/16]

Ms. Brady is a registered nurse who was discharged from a teaching position at a private Indiana school because she responded to a student's question about Indiana's RFRA. When she reported the discharge on her license renewal she was ordered to attend additional training and education by the State Board of Nursing and her license now has a less than full and unrestricted status. The case alleges that this violated the First Amendment and also argues that the Board failed in its mandatory duty to provide Ms. Brady with a written decision.

ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk

Buford v. Commissioner, Indiana Department of Correction (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. District of Indiana) [Filed 2/15]

Ms. Buford is Mr. Benson's sister (see above). As punishment for posting her electronic communication privileges with Mr. Benson were terminated by the DOC. The case seeks both injunctive and declaratory relief and damages. A favorable settlement has been negotiated.

ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk

Davis v. South Bend (U.S. Dist. Ct. – No. Dist of Indiana) [Filed 12/14]

Our client is the President of the South Bend Common Council. He challenges a new ordinance that seeks to regulate the electronic communications and social media use of Common Council members. We filed a preliminary injunction request and the City agreed not to enforce the ordinance. The matter is pending.

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

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

Gracey v. Brownsburg Community School Corporation (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 10/15]

Two cafeteria workers were disciplined by their employer school corporation after they posted comments on Facebook on their own time about two school bond referendums that went to the ballot in May 2015. This occurred because of a broadly worded "social media policy." We have challenged both the discipline and the policy as violating the First Amendment.

ATTORNEY(S): Gavin Rose; Jan Mensz

ICLU v. Secretary of State (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) (Filed 8/15)

This case challenges the new Indiana law the prohibits people taking photos or other digital images of their ballots. The challenge is based on the First Amendment. The district court entered a preliminary injunction against the law. The State did not appeal the grant of a preliminary injunction and the matter is pending.

ATTORNEYS: Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin M. Rose, Jan P. Mensz

Peden v. City of South Bend (U.S. Dist. Ct. — Northern Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 6/14]

This is a challenge to a South Bend ordinance that imposes requirements on persons wishing to serve as street performers on the sidewalks of downtown South Bend. The case alleges that the ordinance violates the First Amendment. The case is pending.

ATTORNEY(S): Gavin M. Rose

*St. John Homeowners PAC v. Town of St. John (U.S. Dist. Ct. – No. Dist.) [Filed 2/16]

Plaintiff is a group that is politically active in St. John. It produced signs to be posted along with other political signs at election time and the Town Manager removed the signs and threatened individuals associated with the PAC with ordinance violations if there were future postings. The suit alleges violations of the First Amendment and seeks damages and injunctive relief.

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

Van Hook v. King (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist.) [filed 8/15]

The plaintiff was employed doing database maintenance at the Indiana Department of Child Services. She was terminated because of an internet posting that she made, concerning a matter of public interest, using her personal computer from home. The case asserts that this violates the First Amendment.

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

Vawter v. Commissioner, BMV (Marion Superior Court; Indiana Supreme Court) [Filed 4/13]

Our client is a police officer who has had a specialty Fraternal Order of Police license plate for a number of years inscribed with "0INK." The BMV has now informed the officer that he can no longer have the plate because it is offensive and misleading. This case, filed as a class action, alleges that the BMV is violating the First Amendment. While the case was pending the Commissioner announced that he was temporarily suspending the personalized license plate program for future participants. The case was amended to challenge this as well. The trial court entered judgment in our favor and the case is being appealed. Because the trial court, among other things, held an Indiana statute unconstitutional, the appeal was taken to the Indian Supreme Court, which reversed the trial court and held for the BMV on the First Amendment issue. A request for review to the United States Supreme Court has been filed.

ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk 

Miscellaneous

Exodus Refugee Immigration v. Pence (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 11/15]

This case challenges the Governor's "suspension" of the resettlement of Syrian refugees in Indiana. The district court granted our request for a preliminary injunction and the State is appealing.

ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin M. Rose, Jan P. Mensz, attorneys from the National ACLU – Judy Rabinovitz, Cecillia Wang, Omar Jadwat

Hope v. Indiana Department of Correction (Marion Superior Court) [Filed 7/14]

In a 2009 case the Indiana Supreme Court held that requiring an individual to register as a sex offender when the person committed his or her offense prior to the time the law had imposed the registration obligation violated the Indiana Constitution's prohibition on ex post facto punishments. This case challenges the fact that the Department of Correction is still listing these persons as having a registration obligation, absent the person affirmatively filing litigation to remove the registration obligation. The case was recently certified as a class action and is proceeding.

Indy Great Pyrenees Rescue, Inc. v. City of Indianapolis (Marion Superior Court) [Filed 10/15]

We represent a dog rescue and one of its owners in this case. One of the rescue's dogs escaped through a fence and bit a person. The owner therefore admitted violating Indianapolis's "animal at large" ordinance and paid a fine. However, this admission also subjected her to a different ordinance, which prohibits her from owning or possessing more than two dogs. As such, this ordinance will cause the closure of the dog rescue. The rescue has been in operation since 2002 without any other dogs escaping through the fence, the dog that bit a person was promptly euthanized, and the fence has been upgraded and reinforced. We are therefore arguing that the continued application of the two-dog limit is irrational and therefore violates substantive due process. The case has been favorably settled.

ATTORNEY(S): Gavin M. Rose

Valenti v. Hartford City, Indiana (U.S. Dist. Ct. – No. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 3/15]

Hartford City has in place an ordinance that prohibits persons who are required to register because of sex offenses against children from going into Child Safety Zones (school, parks, athletic areas, etc.) and also prohibits them from "loitering" within 300 feet of these areas. This is a class action challenge, with an individual request for damages. Hartford City has amended the ordinance and has attempted to define "loitering." However, we believe that the ordinance remains unconstitutional and the case will proceed to summary judgment.

ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk

Prisoners' Rights

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

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

ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk

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

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

ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin Rose, attorneys from Indiana Protection
and Advocacy Services

Lindh v. Warden (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist.) [filed 5/14] (not listed previously)

This is a challenge to the practice in the Communications Management Unit at the federal prison in Terre Haute of subjecting all prisoners to cavity searches before they have a non-attorney visit, even though the visits are all non-contact and are conducted through plexiglass. The case is pending.

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

Richardson v. Monroe County Sheriff (U.S. Dist. Ct. — So. Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 2/08]

This is a case challenging the conditions at the Monroe County Jail. A motion to dismiss has been filed by the defendants and was denied. The case has been settled and is open for monitoring.

ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk

Riker v. Lemmon (United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit) [Filed 8/14]

This is an appeal of a case that we did not handle in the District Court. Ms. Riker is a former employee of the food contractor who provides meals in the prison. While employed Ms. Riker began a relationship with a prisoner. She is no longer employed in the prison. The DOC is denying her and the prisoner the right to marry. The District Court ruled against Ms. Riker and we are appealing this determination. The Seventh Circuit entered a decision in our favor and the case has been remanded to the trial court. The case has been settled and will be closed.

ATTORNEY(S): Gavin M. Rose

 

Religious Freedoms and Establishment Clause

Bellar v. River Forest Community School Corporation (U.S. Dist. Ct.—No. Dist. of Indiana) (Filed 6/2015)

The plaintiffs are a high school student and his parents, who have filed suit to challenge three separate religious practices of the school corporation: the practice of requiring student athletes to participate in coach-led prayers prior to athletic events; the practice of conducting prayers (led by the president of the school board) at or near the beginning of each monthly public meeting of the school board; and the practice of having prayers sponsored by the school corporation at high school graduation ceremonies. The case is pending.

ATTORNEY(S): Gavin M. Rose

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

Each year, Concord High School stages several performances of a "Christmas Spectacular," which includes many songs celebrating the holiday season performed by various classes and groups from the school's performing arts department. The event then concludes with a 20-minute live nativity scene and scriptural reading telling the story of the birth of Jesus Christ. We represent an organization, a student enrolled at the school, and the father of that student in challenging this portion of the Christmas Spectacular as violating the Establishment Clause. A preliminary injunction was granted and the matter is proceeding in the district court.

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

Kemp v. Commissioner (U.S. Dist. Ct. — So. Dist. of Indiana) (Filed 10/14]

This is an action by two Jewish prisoners who were at a facility that provided both a kosher diet and services. The DOC decided to construct what it characterizes as kosher kitchens at 4 institutions. The prisoners were transferred to one of the institutions so that they could continue their kosher diets. However, the DOC has not allowed any of the Jewish prisoners to meet for worship or study at the new institution. Both injunctive and damages are sought. The matter is being pursued.

ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk

Willis contempt cases – Witmer and Benjamin v. Commissioner (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist.)

In Willis v. Indiana Department of Correction (2010), the district court held that prisoners within the DOC who require a kosher meal to satisfy their sincere religious beliefs must be supplied one. Recently (in December of 2014 and January of 2015) we have sought to add two new named plaintiffs to the case to pursue contempt remedies against the DOC for failing to comply with the Willis judgment. The contempt motion is being briefed.

ATTORNEY(S) Kenneth J. Falk

Reproductive Rights

In the Matter of the Licenses of Clinic for Women Physicians (Medical Licensing Board) [Our appearances entered 10/14]

Three physicians who perform abortions for the Clinic for Women in Indianapolis have been accused of not properly completing paperwork in a proceeding pending before the Medical Licensing Board. The matter is being pursued. A hearing was held in September that resulted in a decision that was largely favorable to the doctors. The matter will be closed.

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

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 the matter is pending. 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. — Northern 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

Fair Housing Center of Central Indiana v. Brookfield Farms Homeowners' Assn (U.S. Dist. Ct.— Northern Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 7/14]

This case challenges a restrictive covenant binding all homeowners in a subdivision that restricted housing to single families that deterred a group home for three unrelated adults from opening in the subdivision. The complaint alleges that this violates the Fair Housing Act. The case seeks damages on behalf of the prospective sellers and the Fair Housing Center of Central Indiana. Partial summary judgment is being pursued.

ATTORNEY(S): Gavin M. Rose

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

This is a putative class action that challenges the failure of the Indiana Medicaid program to provide recipients with Harvoni, the new drug that cures Hepatitis C unless and until they reach the later stages of the disease. A preliminary injunction has been sought.

ATTORNEY(S): Gavin M. Rose. Fran Quigley (IU McKinney School of Law)

Meeker v. Kosciusko Community Fair, Inc. (U.S. Dist. Ct. – No. Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 9/14] (mistakenly not listed previously)

The client, who is a person with disabilities, challenges the lack of accessibility of the Kosckiusko County Community Fair fairgrounds. A settlement has been filed and has been approved. The case remains open for monitoring.

ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk

Neal v. Indiana Department of Correction (U.S. Dist. Ct. –So District of Ind.) [filed 9/15)

Plaintiff is a prisoner with a disability that prevents him from walking any distance. He is being denied a wheelchair, which, in turn, prevents him from accessing various program available to prisoners. The case alleges that this violates the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

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

Overla v. Sheriff of Tippecanoe County (U.S. Dist. Ct. — Northern Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 3/14]

The plaintiff is an amputee who was imprisoned for some time in the Tippecanoe County Jail. The case alleges that his disability was not accommodated in violation of the Eighth Amendment, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and Indiana law. A hearing was recently had to determine if Mr. Overla had exhaused his administrative grievances so that the case may move forward. The matter has been settled and will be closed.

ATTORNEYS(S): Kenneth J. Falk

Sipe v. Indiana Department of Correction (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 6/ 15]

This case challenges the fact that the plaintiff, a wheelchair bound prisoner with a disability, was placed into segregation by the DOC because there were accessible cells there, even though there were accessible areas elsewhere in the institution. Because he was still classified as general population - even though in segregation- he was forced to leave the segregation unit for recreation and other matters. Each time he did he had to struggle out of his wheelchair so he could be strip searched – both at leaving and returning. Damages and injunctive relief are sought.

ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk

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

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

ATTORNEY(S): Gavin M. Rose

Steimel v. Minott (U.S. Dist. Ct. — So. Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 6/13]

This is a class action challenge to recent actions by the State of Indiana eliminating the waiting list for a Medicaid waiver program and determining that persons with developmental disabilities who do not required skilled nursing services may not receive services through a particular waiver designed to allow the aged and disabled to receive services in the community as opposed to nursing homes. The case alleges that these actions violate the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act, in addition to the Medicaid Act. The trial court has denied plaintiffs' request for class certification and the matter is continuing with individual plaintiffs. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the defendants, and we have appealed both that order and the denial of class certification. A decision is pending in the Seventh Circuit after oral argument.

ATTORNEY(S): Gavin M. Rose

Beckem v. FSSA (U.S. Dist. Ct. — So. Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 4/14]

I realize that this case is out of alphabetical order. However, it is a damages case by persons who would have been class members in the Steimel case immediately above. The plaintiffs in this case, who lost services when they were removed from the aged and disabled waiver, seek damages because of the violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act. One of the plaintiffs, like the plaintiff in Steimel, also seeks injunctive relief to get back on the waiver. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the defendants, and we have appealed that order.

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 

Wolfe v. Indiana Department of Correction (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 6/ 15]

This case challenges the fact that the plaintiff, a wheelchair bound prisoner with a disability, was placed into segregation by the DOC because there were accessible cells there, even though there were accessible areas elsewhere in the institution. Because he was still classified as general population —even though in segregation- he was forced to leave the segregation unit for recreation and other matters. Each time he did he had to struggle out of his wheelchair so he could be strip searched —both at leaving and returning. Damages are sought.

ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk

Search and Seizure Issues

McKnight v. Miller (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 12/14]

The plaintiff is a long-time Deputy Sheriff for the Monroe County Sheriff's Department. She was at home with family members when the defendant, an Indiana State Trooper entered her home without her consent and interrogated her and her children about allegedly stealing a dog grooming item that was supposed to have been delivered to a neighbor. A settlement has been negotiated.

ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk

Neale v. Black Township, Posey County, Indiana (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 6/15]

This case challenges the requirement imposed by the Black Township Trustee that all applicants for township assistance must take and pass a drug test. The Trustee has agreed to suspend its policy while the case is resolved.

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

 

The ACLU defends basic freedoms, every day, for every American. Support us with your tax deductible gift today.