Daniels’ drug resistant form of TB is a serious medical condition. Daniels is not challenging his isolation or his civil confinement, but the conditions of confinement, which seem to be punitive in nature and do not seem related to either his medical treatment or ensuring the general health of the jail ward of the Center. Sheriff Arpaio, specifically, stated that he would not differentiate between an inmate and person with a contagious disease he would treat them in the same manner and they would be housed under the same conditions. The Center has been used in the past to house civilly confined persons under quarantine, despite allegations that it was known that the treatment received, specifically the punitive-like conditions of confinement, were the same for both those criminally incarcerated seeking medical treatment and those civilly committed due to illness. The named defendants are Maricopa County, Robert England, James Kennedy, Marciella P. Daniels filed a complaint in May of 2007 with the District Court of Arizona challenging the conditions of his confinement pursuant to federal and state equal protection, due process, and statutory law. He suffers from a drug resistant strain of tuberculosis (“TB”) most likely acquired during incarceration in a Russian jail and was determined to require quarantine. In July 2006, an Arizona civil court acting on the recommendation of Maricopa County officials, civilly committed Robert Daniels to the jail ward of Maricopa County Medical Center (“Center”), Comp. 3 Without addressing any defenses that the defendants will raise, he should be able to establish that his lack of access to prison programs and services including educational, social, and vocational programs, and lack of access to prison services including exercise, outdoor, and shower facilities, are violations of Title II of the ADA. He will have to establish successfully the four required elements and will most likely be challenged on whether he meets the definition of “an otherwise qualified individual” and whether the conditions of his confinement are “public benefits” within the meaning of Title II. Daniels can argue that his current conditions of confinement amount to a prima facie case of discrimination under Title II of the ADA. 1996), because they deprive him with “meaningful access” to the broader public benefits and services offered by the hospital jail ward. 581 (1999), by imposing conditions of confinement that are not “integrated” and not the “least restrictive” or (3) arguing that certain conditions of his confinement are not reasonable under the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Crowder v. (2000), by: (1) establishing the four elements of a prima facie case of disability discrimination by a public entity prohibited under Title II 2 or (2) arguing that the state failed to incorporate the Olmstead mandate of the ADA, 527 U.S. Daniels can argue that the conditions of civil confinement at the jail ward of the Maricopa County Medical Center, alleged in his complaint, 1 amount to discrimination based on disability and violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. – ADA claim challenging the conditions of his confinement.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |