Citation Verification Report
✓
0 Verified
✗
0 Issues
⚠
0 Unresolved
Case: 1:24-cv-00099-SA-DAS Doc #: 38 Filed: 04/25/25 1 of 17 PageID #: 510
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
ABERDEEN DIVISION
| DISABILITY RIGHTS MISSISSIPPI | PLAINTIFF |
| --- | --- |
| VS. | CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:24-CV-99-SA-DS |
| PALMER HOME FOR CHILDREN | DEFENDANT |
Plaintiff, DISABILITY RIGHTS MISSISSIPPI ("DRMS"), seeks a permanent injunction to prohibit Defendant, PALMER HOME FOR CHILDREN ("Palmer Home") from continued violation of federal and state laws stemming from their refusal to recognize and cooperate with the monitoring and investigatory access authority of DRMS. As Mississippi's designated Protection and Advocacy ("P&A") system, DRMS is entitled to timely and meaningful access to facilities serving individuals with disabilities — a right Palmer Home has repeatedly and unlawfully denied.
Palmer Home's categorical refusal to comply with DRMS's clear statutory authority has persisted unabated, obstructing DRMS's ability to monitor conditions, investigate allegations of abuse and neglect, and protect the civil and human rights of vulnerable children. Congress did not design the P&A system to rely on the voluntary cooperation of facilities; it intended for independent oversight to be mandatory, enforceable, and insulated from facility resistance.
Permanent injunctive relief is not only appropriate — it is necessary to prevent further violations of federal law and to fulfill the urgent protective mandate Congress imposed on DRMS.
DRMS is the P&A for individuals with disabilities in the state of Mississippi. DRMS brings forth this action against Palmer Home for refusing to provide DRMS with timely access to discharge its duties as requested in connection with both monitoring and investigation, as required by law.
Case: 1:24-cv-00099-SA-DAS Doc #: 38 Filed: 04/25/25 2 of 17 PageID #: 511
DRMS received allegations of abuse and neglect through its designation as the state’s P&A. Palmer Home’s refusal to comply with federal law prevents DRMS from fulfilling its statutory mandates to investigate allegations of abuse and neglect and provide protection and advocacy services for individuals with disabilities. Immediate access to facilities as well as reasonable access to residents must be granted to DRMS so it may carry out its mandate to investigate complaints of abuse and neglect and provide services to individuals with disabilities.
The U.S. Congress enacted the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act (“PADD Act”) in 1975 to protect the human and civil rights of this vulnerable population. Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program v. Tarwater Developmental Ctr., 97 F.3 d 492, 494 (11th Cir. 1996) (citing InL. p2-2 42 U.S.C. §§ 15041, et seq.); see also InL. p2-3 42 U.S.C. § 6000, et seq. (amended by the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-402, 114 Stat. 1677, 1714, § 143(a)(1) and codified at 42 U.S.C. § 15041, et seq.). As an integral component of the PADD Act, the national protection and advocacy (“P&A”) system was established to ensure that these protections became a reality. InL. p2-4 Id.
Several years later, congressional investigations found deplorable living conditions and rampant abuse in psychiatric facilities. InL. p2-5 42 U.S.C. § 10801(a)(1) and (4); see also Care of Institutionalized Mentally Disabled Persons, Joint Hearings before the Subcommittee on the Handicapped of the Committee on Labor and Human Resources and the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations, United States Senate, 99th Cong. 1st Sess. (1985); Pennsylvania Protection & Advocacy, Inc. v. Houstoun, 228 F.3d 423, 425 (3d Cir. 2000); Doe v. Stincer, 175 F.3d 879, 883 (11th Cir. 1999); Wisconsin Coalition for Advocacy, Inc. v. Czaplewski, 131 F. Supp. 2d 1039, 1045 (E.D. Wis. 2001); Advocacy Ctr. v. Stalder, 128 F. Supp. 2d 358, 360 (M.D. La. 1999).
Case: 1:24-cv-00099-SA-DAS Doc #: 38 Filed: 04/25/25 3 of 17 PageID #: 512
Following these investigations, Congress passed the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act (“PAIMI Act”) of 1986. InL. p3-1 42 U.S.C. § 10801, et seq. The PAIMI Act is modeled after the PADD Act and provides parallel protections for persons with mental disabilities and differs only in the population that the act is designed to serve. See, e.g., InL. p3-2 42 U.S.C. § 10803; InL. p3-3 S. Rep. No. 109, 99th Cong., 1st Sess. 3 (1986); InL. p3-4 S. Rep. No. 113, 100th Cong., 1st Sess. 24 (1987), reprinted in 1987 U.S.C.A.A.N. 781, 803-04; InL. p3-5 *Tarwater*, 894 F. Supp. 424, 428 (M.D. Ala. 1995), aff’d, 97 F.3d at 494 (noting that the courts’ reasoning applies with equal force to both Acts). Accordingly, courts have frequently turned to the provisions of one Act to explain the other. In InL. p3-6 *Advocacy, Inc. v. Tarrant County Hosp.*, No. 4:01-CV-062-BE, 2001 WL 1297688, at *1 n.4 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 11, 2002)*, the court stated that “[i]n enacting [PAIMI] Congress extended the same protections to people with mental illness [as under the PADD Act]” and noted that “the acts are nearly identical and further the same goal-protecting the rights of vulnerable individuals ...”
The Protection and Advocacy of Individuals’ Rights (“PAIR”) Program of the Rehabilitation Act, InL. p11-4 29 U.S.C. § 794e, further extended the protection and advocacy mandate to protect the legal and human rights of all individuals with disabilities who are ineligible for P&A services under either the PAIMI Act, the PADD Act, or other protection and advocacy programs. Under the PAIR statute, P&A systems are authorized to use the same mechanism under the PADD Act to serve persons with disabilities. InL. p3-7 29 U.S.C. § 794e (f); InL. p3-8 34 C.F.R. § 381.10. “Thus while PAIR applies to a broader segment of the population of individuals with disabilities, it allows protection and advocacy systems the same breadth of investigative and advocacy authority allowed under the DD Act.” InL. p3-9 *State of Conn. Office of Prot. & Advocacy for Persons with Disabilities v. Hartford Bd. of Educ.*, 355 F. Supp. 2d 649, 654 (D. Conn. 2005), aff’d sub nom. Conn. Office of Prot. & Advocacy for Persons with Disabilities v. Hartford Bd. of Educ., 464 F.3d 229 (2d Cir. 2006) (Sotomayor, J.).
Case: 1:24-cv-00099-SA-DAS Doc #: 38 Filed: 04/25/25 4 of 17 PageID #: 513
In late 2023, DRMS received reports alleging potential abuse and neglect at Palmer Home. The complaint outlined several serious concerns, including the hiring of a convicted felon as campus director, instances of residents becoming pregnant while in care, allegations of verbal and emotional abuse, reports of suicide, and the termination of staff members who attempted to report these incidents. Despite the severity of these complaints and the lack of prior knowledge of this facility, DRMS decided to postpone the initiation of an investigation, opting first to conduct a monitoring visit to verify the complaints.
In January 2024, DRMS began efforts to arrange monitoring visits at Palmer Home and initiated communication with Amanda Tollison, counsel for the Defendant. See InL. p4-1 Exhibit A. After a brief delay caused by the departure of the attorney responsible for scheduling the monitoring, DRMS continued to seek a finalized monitoring visit date throughout March 2024. On March 18, 2024, dates for the monitoring visit were proposed. See InL. p4-2 Exhibit B. DRMS attempted to confirm one of the proposed dates and clarified its authority to conduct unannounced monitoring visits. As a courtesy, DRMS initially sought to arrange the first visit, with the understanding that future visits would be unannounced. An overview of DRMS' access authority was provided for further clarification. See InL. p4-3 Exhibit C. On March 22, 2024, the Defendant responded by denying access, asserting that Palmer Home is not subject to DRMS' access authority. See InL. p4-4 Exhibit D.
In light of the complaints received and the denial of access, DRMS initiated an investigation pursuant to the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness (PAIMI), Protection and Advocacy for Persons with Developmental Disabilities (PADD), and Protection and Advocacy for Individual Rights (PAIR) (collectively referred to as the "P&A Acts"). The investigation was initiated on April 2, 2024, and a response of acknowledgment was requested. See InL. p4-6 Exhibit E. On April 9, 2024, DRMS sent a follow-up regarding the investigation due to the lack of acknowledgment or response from the Defendant. See InL. p4-7 Exhibit F. DRMS also informed the
Case: 1:24-cv-00099-SA-DAS Doc #: 38 Filed: 04/25/25 5 of 17 PageID #: 514
Defendant’s counsel that, in connection with the investigation, the agency had contacted the Mississippi Department of Health, which confirmed that children with disabilities had been observed during their last facility visit. On April 10, 2024, the Defendant denied DRMS investigatory access to its facilities. See InL. p5-1 Exhibit G.
Congress passed the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act (“DD Act”) of 1975 to protect the rights of persons with developmental disabilities. InL. p5-2 42 U.S.C. § 6000 et seq. More recently, Congress passed the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000, which repealed and replaced the 1975 Act. InL. p5-3 42 U.S.C. § 15001 et seq.
The DD Act established the P&A system to advocate for persons with developmental disabilities and granted the P&A system authority to access service providers, residents, and their records. InL. p5-4 Id. at § 15043. The P&A system was expanded when Congress passed the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act of 1986 (“PAIMI Act”). InL. p5-5 42 U.S.C. § 10801 et seq. The PAIMI Act was modeled after the DD Act and it created a parallel P&A program for protecting individuals with mental illness. InL. p5-6 Id. at § 10801. The PAIMI program has similar federal authority to access individuals, facilities, and records. InL. p5-7 Id. at § 10805. In
Moreover, DRMS is further entitled to access records of the individuals which the P&A is obligated to protect. DRMS’ access authority provides access to reports and records prepared by an agency charged with investigating incidents of abuse, neglect, injury, or death of an individual with a developmental disability or a mental illness. InL. p5-8 42 U.S.C. § 10806(b)(3) and § 15043(c)(2). Access authority includes access to documents regarding the steps taken to investigate the incidents; reports and records, including personnel records; supporting information that was relied upon in creating a report, including all information and records used and reviewed in preparing reports; records that
Case: 1:24-cv-00099-SA-DAS Doc #: 38 Filed: 04/25/25 6 of 17 PageID #: 515
describe persons who were interviewed; physical and documentary evidence that was reviewed; and related investigative findings. InL. p6-1 42 C.F.R. § 51.41; InL. p6-2 45 C.F.R. § 1326.25. DRMS is entitled to access draft or final documents, including handwritten notes, electronic files, photographs, or video or audio tape records. InL. p6-3 42 C.F.R. § 51.41(c); InL. p6-4 45 C.F.R. § 1326.25(b). In 1982, Governor William Winter designated DRMS (then known as Mississippi Protection and Advocacy System) and DRMS has been serving in that role since that time. See InL. p6-5 Exhibit H.
In connection with this argument, DRMS notes that the Defendant has raised several points regarding the applicability of the P&A Acts to the Defendant and will address these briefly:
i. Palmer Home is a Facility Providing Care and Treatment under PAIMI
The statutory and regulatory language governing DRMS’s authority is intentionally broad. The Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act (“PAIMI Act”) grants DRMS “access to facilities in the State providing care or treatment” to individuals with mental illness. InL. p6-6 42 U.S.C. § 10805(a)(3); see also InL. p6-7 Miller v. Indiana Dep’t of Corr., 849 F. Supp. 1206, 1207 (N.D. Ind. 1994). PAIMI defines “facilities” expansively to include, but not be limited to, “hospitals, nursing homes, community facilities for individuals with mental illness, board and care homes, homeless shelters, and jails and prisons.” InL. p6-8 42 U.S.C. § 10802(3). Congress deliberately used inclusive language to prevent facilities from evading oversight based on technicalities.
The only relevant question is whether Palmer Home “provid[es] care or treatment” to individuals with mental illness. InL. p2-4 Id. It plainly does. Palmer Home publicly represents that it:
¹ https://palmerhome.org/about/
² Palmer Home for Children 2023 Impact Report; https://palmerhome.org/cultural-values/
Case: 1:24-cv-00099-SA-DAS Doc #: 38 Filed: 04/25/25 7 of 17 PageID #: 516
Additionally, Palmer Home operates a residential foster care program where children reside 24 hours a day under its care and supervision. Defendant’s own admissions confirm it provides case management services, coordinates mental health assessments by licensed psychologists, and arranges for therapy and counseling services, both on and off campus. These activities — whether delivered directly or through third parties — fall squarely within the statutory definitions of “care and treatment.” See InL. p7-2 Exhibit I.⁴
Palmer Home’s assertion that it does not provide "care or treatment" is both legally incorrect and factually baseless. Courts consistently reject facilities’ attempts to avoid P&A access by redefining their services. See InL. p7-4 *Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program v. SafetyNet Youthcare, Inc.*, 65 F. Supp. 3d 1312, 1322 (S.D. Ala. 2014) (“The relevant inquiry focuses on the nature of the services provided, not the label the facility assigns itself.”)
Even if Palmer Home’s direct admissions were not sufficient, federal regulations leave no doubt: P&A access rights extend to any “public or private residential setting that provides overnight care accompanied by treatment services.” InL. p7-5 42 C.F.R. § 51.2. Palmer Home meets this definition precisely.
With respect to the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act (“PADD Act”), it is immaterial whether Palmer Home has definitively identified residents with developmental disabilities. Federal regulations require access where a facility “provides care, treatment, services and habilitation, even if only ‘as needed’ or under a contractual arrangement” to individuals with
³ InL. p7-1 https://palmerhome.org/wellness-center/
⁴ InL. p7-3 Defendant Palmer Home for Children’s Response to Interrogatory #1, #3, and #5 (pp 2-3, 6, and 8).
Case: 1:24-cv-00099-SA-DAS Doc #: 38 Filed: 04/25/25 8 of 17 PageID #: 517
developmental disabilities. InL. p8-1 45 C.F.R. § 1386.19; § 1386.22(f). Palmer Home’s admissions and services satisfy these criteria.
Finally, even if Palmer Home were somehow outside the coverage of PAIMI and PADD — which it is not — the Protection and Advocacy for Individual Rights (“PAIR”) Act independently authorizes DRMS to access facilities serving individuals with any form of disability, on identical terms. InL. p8-2 29 U.S.C. § 794e(a)(1).
In short, Palmer Home is a residential facility providing care, treatment, services, and habilitation to children with disabilities. Its continued refusal to allow DRMS access places it in clear and ongoing violation of federal law. Without permanent injunctive relief, those violations — and the risk to vulnerable children — will persist.
Throughout its responses and defenses, Palmer Home suggests it is not subject to the P&A statutes because it allegedly does not serve children with disabilities. This assertion is not only factually improbable — it is legally irrelevant.
The American Academy of Pediatrics has recognized that children in foster care frequently have special health care needs stemming from complex medical, mental health, and developmental issues related to childhood adversity and trauma. Children with intellectual and developmental disabilities (“ID/DD”) experience elevated rates of foster care involvement and face heightened risks of mental health disorders such as oppositional defiant disorder, major depressive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and reactive attachment disorder. Placement disruptions, loss of services, and childhood trauma compound these vulnerabilities⁵⁶.
⁵ InL. p8-3 Shea L, Villodas ML, Ventimiglia J, Wilson AB, Cooper D. Foster Care Involvement Among Youth With Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. JAMA Pediatr. 2024;178(4):384–390. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2023.6580
⁶ InL. p8-4 Engler, A. D., Sarpong, K. O., Van Horne, B. S., Greeley, C. S., & Keefe, R. J. (2022). A Systematic Review of Mental Health Disorders of Children in Foster Care. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 23(1), 255-264.
Case: 1:24-cv-00099-SA-DAS Doc #: 38 Filed: 04/25/25 9 of 17 PageID #: 518
Given these well-established realities — and Palmer Home’s own representation that it provides trauma-informed care — the notion that Palmer Home serves no children with disabilities strains credulity.
Moreover, the P&A Acts do not require absolute proof of disability before DRMS may access a facility. Federal regulations expressly authorize P&A systems to access all individuals in a facility when necessary to monitor conditions or investigate allegations of abuse or neglect. InL. p9-1 45 C.F.R. § 1386.22(g); InL. p9-2 J.H. ex rel. Gray v. Hinds Cnty., Miss., No. 3:11-CV-327-DPJ-FKB, 2011 WL 3047667, at *3 (S.D. Miss. July 25, 2011). Many courts have rejected the idea that a P&A must establish a diagnosis before gaining access. See Michigan Prot. & Advocacy Serv., Inc. v. Miller, 849 F. Supp. 1202, 1207 (W.D. Mich. 1994). Substantial evidence — including national data, logical inference from foster care demographics, and Palmer Home’s own operational admissions — suffices to trigger access. DRMS has provided ample basis to proceed under the law.
Even if that were not enough, Palmer Home’s own Admissions and Discharge Policy defeats its position. Palmer Home affirmatively states that it “shall ordinarily serve children who meet the following criteria: [...] mild to moderate physical, developmental or intellectual disabilities [and] mild to moderate behavioral and emotional diagnoses.” See InL. p9-4 Exhibit J, Palmer Home Admissions and Discharge Policy, PH-106-110. This admission is dispositive.
The InL. p16-1 PADD, PAIMI, and PAIR Acts do not limit P&A access to facilities serving only individuals with “severe” disabilities. Oversight extends broadly to any facility serving individuals with qualifying conditions, regardless of severity. Palmer Home’s own policies place it squarely within DRMS’s jurisdiction. Facilities cannot contract around federal oversight by limiting the severity of the conditions they accept. Palmer Home’s refusal to allow DRMS access — despite its own admissions — is a clear, continuing violation of federal law.
Case: 1:24-cv-00099-SA-DAS Doc #: 38 Filed: 04/25/25 10 of 17 PageID #: 519
Permanent injunctive relief is necessary to enforce DRMS’s access rights, protect the vulnerable children in Palmer Home’s care, and prevent ongoing evasion of Congress’s statutory mandate.
Palmer Home boldly asserts that DRMS lacks probable cause to initiate an investigation. That argument fails both legally and factually. Defendant does not get to decide whether probable cause exists.
It is well-settled that the P&A system is the final arbiter of probable cause for the purpose of triggering its authority to access facilities and records. Arizona Center for Disability Law v. Allen, 197 F.R.D. 689, 693 (D. Ariz. 2000); Protection & Advocacy for Persons with Disabilities v. Armstrong, 266 F. Supp. 2d 303, 321 (D. Conn. 2003); Center for Legal Advocacy v. Earnest, 188 F. Supp. 2d 1251, 1257 (D. Colo. 2002); Iowa Prot. & Advocacy Servs., Inc. v. Gerard Treatment Programs, L.L.C., 152 F. Supp. 2d 1150, 1157 (N.D. Iowa 2001).
Federal law is equally clear: The PAIMI Act authorizes a P&A to investigate both formal complaints and any circumstances where other information gives rise to probable cause. InL. p10-5 42 U.S.C. § 10805(a)(4)(B); InL. p6-1 42 C.F.R. § 51.41. Probable cause under PAIMI is defined as "reasonable grounds for belief" that an individual with mental illness has been, or may be, at significant risk of abuse or neglect — and may be based on reasonable inferences drawn from the P&A’s experience and training. InL. p7-5 42 C.F.R. § 51.2; see also InL. p10-8 Advocacy, Inc. v. Tarrant County Hosp. Dist., No. 4:01-CV-062-BE, 2001 WL 1297688, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 11, 2001).
No external validation or approval is required. Once DRMS, exercising its professional judgment, determined that probable cause existed based on serious allegations — including reports of abuse, neglect, suicide attempts, and retaliation against whistleblowing staff — it was entitled to
Case: 1:24-cv-00099-SA-DAS Doc #: 38 Filed: 04/25/25 11 of 17 PageID #: 520
invoke its full statutory access authority. The law gives Palmer Home no veto power over that determination.
DRMS easily satisfies each of the four elements required for permanent injunctive relief. To obtain a permanent injunction, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) actual success on the merits; (2) that failure to grant the injunction will result in irreparable injury; (3) that the threatened injury outweighs any harm the injunction may cause the opposing party; and (4) that the injunction will not disserve the public interest. InL. p11-1 United Motorcoach Ass'n, Inc. v. City of Austin, 851 F.3d 489, 492–93 (5th Cir. 2017).
DRMS has asserted claims under the federal Protection and Advocacy statutes, from which its authority to access facilities, residents, and records stems. The law governing P&A access is clear and well-settled. DRMS has not merely shown a likelihood of success — it has fully established success on the merits based on the undisputed record.
Under the P&A Acts, DRMS is expressly authorized to monitor conditions, investigate allegations of abuse and neglect, and pursue all appropriate remedies to protect individuals with disabilities. See InL. p11-2 42 U.S.C. §§ 15043(a)(2)(A)(i), (a)(2)(B); InL. p11-4 29 U.S.C. § 794e. Once a P&A system establishes probable cause and a nexus to a covered facility or individual, its access rights are mandatory and self-executing. See Protection & Advocacy for Persons with Disabilities v. Armstrong, 266 F. Supp. 2d 303, 321 (D. Conn. 2003).InL. p11-3 42 U.S.C. § 10805;
Here, DRMS has demonstrated each necessary element for success on the merits:
⁷ Under the P&A statutes, a "triggering complaint" refers to any report, allegation, or information that gives a P&A system probable cause to believe that an individual with a disability has been, or may be, subject to abuse or neglect. See InL. p11-6 42 U.S.C. § 15043(a)(2)(B) (PADD Act); InL. p7-5 42 C.F.R. § 51.2. A P&A may initiate an investigation based on a complaint, media report, personal observation, or any other credible information suggesting potential abuse or neglect — formal proof is not required. See Disability Law Center v. DiscoveryInL. p11-8 45 C.F.R. § 1326.19; InL. p11-7 42 U.S.C. § 10805(a)(1)(A) (PAIMI Act);
Case: 1:24-cv-00099-SA-DAS Doc #: 38 Filed: 04/25/25 12 of 17 PageID #: 521
This evidence satisfies the P&A statutory standards and meets the permanent injunction threshold. No further factual development is required. Palmer Home’s continued refusal to comply with DRMS’s access authority constitutes an ongoing violation of federal law that only a permanent injunction can remedy.
DRMS meets this element because Palmer Home’s continued obstruction denies DRMS the ability to fulfill its federal statutory mandate to protect and advocate for individuals with disabilities in Mississippi. The threat of harm here is substantial, ongoing, and cannot be remedied through monetary damages. See InL. p12-4 Parks v. Dunlop, 517 F.2d 785, 787 (5th Cir. 1975).
The P&A statutes authorize DRMS to investigate incidents of abuse and neglect and to monitor facilities precisely because such conditions, if left unchecked, pose an imminent risk of irreparable harm. InL. p12-5 42 U.S.C. §§ 15043(a), 10805(a). By definition, abuse and neglect implicate urgent safety and human rights concerns that cannot wait for monetary or retrospective remedies.
InL. p12-6 Academy, 2006 WL 3841518, at 2 (D. Utah Dec. 29, 2006) (holding that a P&A is entitled to access based on allegations of mistreatment without need for independent corroboration before access). Once a triggering complaint is received, the P&A’s access rights are activated, and it is authorized to investigate without needing facility permission or judicial preclearance. In this case, the triggering complaint of suspected abuse and neglect was submitted anonymously, which is expressly permitted under the P&A statutes and regulations. See InL. p12-7 42 C.F.R. § 51.45(a) (allowing initiation of investigations based on information from any source, including anonymous reports).
Case: 1:24-cv-00099-SA-DAS Doc #: 38 Filed: 04/25/25 13 of 17 PageID #: 522
When a P&A system is denied timely access, the resulting harm is immediate and compounding. As time passes, witnesses become unavailable or their memories fade, evidence is lost or destroyed, and — most critically — individuals remain exposed to potential abuse and neglect without independent oversight. See Ohio Legal Rights Serv. v. Buckeye Ranch, Inc., 365 F. Supp. 2d 877, 883 (S.D. Ohio 2005) (“There is no dispute that a protection and advocacy agency’s inability to meet its federal statutory mandate constitutes irreparable harm.”).
Here, DRMS has already been prevented from investigating serious allegations due to Palmer Home’s unlawful denials. Unless permanently enjoined, Defendant’s ongoing obstruction will continue to irreparably harm DRMS’s ability to fulfill its protective role and will expose vulnerable children to unchecked risk. Permanent relief is not simply warranted; it is required to prevent continued violations of federal law and to protect the safety and rights of vulnerable children.
Defendant will suffer no cognizable hardship by complying with DRMS’s lawful access requests. Palmer Home’s burden in complying with federal law is minimal: it need only permit the access that Congress expressly mandated. Permitting DRMS to monitor conditions, review records, and interview individuals imposes no undue disruption or operational burden.
Nor does confidentiality present any legitimate obstacle. The P&A Acts require DRMS to maintain the confidentiality of all records and information it obtains, to the same extent applicable to Palmer Home itself. See InL. p13-2 42 U.S.C. § 10806(a). Defendant may also avoid unnecessary costs by providing access electronically, in person, or by assessing reasonable duplication costs in accordance with federal regulations. See InL. p13-3 42 C.F.R. § 51.41(e).
Case: 1:24-cv-00099-SA-DAS Doc #: 38 Filed: 04/25/25 14 of 17 PageID #: 523
Palmer Home has not articulated — and cannot articulate — any legally sufficient harm that would result from compliance. Its objections reflect a refusal to recognize DRMS’s authority, not any genuine burden. By contrast, DRMS faces continuing irreparable harm each day access is denied, and the children housed at Palmer Home remain at risk without independent oversight.
Where the choice is between a facility’s minor administrative burden and the risk of unchecked abuse or neglect of vulnerable children, equity compels immediate judicial action. The hardship to DRMS and the public interest in enforcing federal civil rights law overwhelmingly outweigh any speculative inconvenience to Palmer Home. Permanent injunctive relief is therefore necessary and appropriate to protect both the interests of DRMS and the individuals it is mandated to serve.
Palmer Home’s ongoing obstruction has prevented DRMS from fulfilling its congressionally mandated role to protect individuals with disabilities. Granting permanent injunctive relief will serve — and in fact, vindicate — the public interest by ensuring DRMS can conduct timely investigations into suspected abuse and neglect, consistent with federal law.
The public interest is always advanced by requiring parties to comply with duly enacted federal statutes. See InL. p14-1 Mississippi Power & Light Co. v. United Gas Pipe Line Co., 760 F.2d 618, 625 (5th Cir. 1985) (recognizing that legislative enactments express public policy). Here, Congress has already determined through the P&A Acts that it is in the public interest for protection and advocacy systems like DRMS to have access to facilities serving individuals with disabilities.
Moreover, equitable principles strongly favor injunctive relief where important federal rights are at stake. See InL. p14-2 Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Dixon, 835 F.2d 554, 562 (5th Cir. 1987) (“The general flexibility of equitable powers is enhanced where, as here, the public interest is at stake.”).
14
Case: 1:24-cv-00099-SA-DAS Doc #: 38 Filed: 04/25/25 15 of 17 PageID #: 524
In light of the strong public interest involved, the minimal burden on Palmer Home in complying with federal law, and DRMS’s non-profit status, the Court should also waive any security bond requirement. See InL. p15-1 Temple Univ. v. White, 941 F.2d 201, 219-20 (3d Cir. 1991) (waiving bond where plaintiffs sought to enforce important federal rights under comprehensive federal statutes).
DRMS has already been forced to divert scarce resources to enforce its access rights. Permanent injunctive relief — without the imposition of a bond — is necessary to protect vulnerable individuals and ensure the effective operation of Mississippi’s federally mandated protection and advocacy system.
Palmer Home’s ongoing refusal to comply with DRMS’s statutory access rights — despite the clear mandates of federal law — makes permanent injunctive relief not only appropriate, but necessary. Valuable time that should have been spent investigating serious allegations of abuse and neglect has already been lost. As the investigation stalls, the risk to vulnerable children continues, and DRMS’s ability to fulfill its protective mission is compromised.
DRMS respectfully acknowledges the Court’s careful management of these proceedings. However, the factual record now plainly establishes that Palmer Home has no intention of voluntarily complying with federal law absent judicial intervention. Continued noncompliance erodes the effectiveness of the statutory protections Congress enacted and endangers the very individuals the P&A system exists to protect. To prevent further delay, to safeguard the rights of vulnerable children, and to vindicate the strong public interest underlying the P&A Acts, permanent injunctive relief must be ordered immediately.
For the reasons set forth above, DRMS respectfully requests that this Court grant permanent injunctive relief requiring Palmer Home to comply with its statutory access obligations under the
Case: 1:24-cv-00099-SA-DAS Doc #: 38 Filed: 04/25/25 16 of 17 PageID #: 525
InL. p16-1 PADD, PAIMI, and PAIR Acts. DRMS has demonstrated success on the merits, irreparable harm, a clear balance of equities in its favor, and a compelling public interest in enforcing federal law.
Without permanent relief, DRMS will remain unable to fulfill its congressionally mandated role — and vulnerable children will remain without the independent oversight Congress intended to guarantee. The law, the record, and equity all demand immediate and permanent enforcement of DRMS's access rights.
DATED: April 25, 2025
DISABILITY RIGHTS MISSISSIPPI
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
/s/ Greta K. Martin
Greta Kemp Martin, MSB# 103672
Disability Rights Mississippi
5 Old River Place, Suite 101
Jackson, Mississippi 39202
Telephone: (601) 968-0600
Facsimile: (601)968-0665
gmartin@drms.ms
16
Case: 1:24-cv-00099-SA-DAS Doc #: 38 Filed: 04/25/25 17 of 17 PageID #: 526
I hereby certify that the foregoing has been filed with this Court's electronic filing system which automatically sends notice to all Attorneys of record.
DATED: April 25, 2025
/s/ Greta K. Martin
Greta Kemp Martin, MSB# 103672
Disability Rights Mississippi
5 Old River Place, Suite 101
Jackson, Mississippi 39202
Telephone: (601) 968-0600
Facsimile: (601)968-0665
gmartin@drms.ms