Olmstead, Declaratory Judgment & Stakeholder Groups

​I'm starting off with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 57 for DECLARATORY JUDGMENT in Federal Court.

As part of that, I'll create a brief checklist.

This is not all that needs to be considered.  We will take this opportunity to create relevant checklists for ourselves and whoever might be interested.

​In the case of FRCP 57 --- the rule itself is exceedingly brief, but there are NOTES of the ADVISORY COMMITTEE from 1937, 1948 and 2007.

The ADVISORY COMMITTEE NOTES from 1948 go to a statutory reference and the 2007 notes are stylistic.  

So the SUBSTANTIVE ADVISORY COMMITTEE NOTES are from 1937.

​There are a lot of ways to address Olmstead Enforcement --- one way might be to BREAK THIS DOWN.

It seems to me that provision of ASSERTIVE COMMUNITY TREATMENT to SCALE is NOT a Fundamental Alteration for purposes of Olmstead and is RIPE for a DECLARATORY JUDGMENT.

• This is based on the of US Dept. of Justice Settlement Agreements requiring Assertive Community Treatment (ACT)
• A 2010 US Dept. of Justice "Findings Letter" [Delaware] that bringing ACT to scale did not amount to a Fundamental Alteration of the State's Plan for Disability Service Provision.

​In Olmstead Cases, a request for Declaratory Judgment is often paired with a request for Injunctive and Permanent Relief.

A request for DECLARATORY JUDGMENT alone is mainly providing CLARITY as opposed to ENFORCEMENT.

​Further, there may be some important INCLUSION GOALS to creating something of a HYBRID Process:

• Organizational Entity / Plaintiff begins with DEMAND LETTER to the STATE --- 
• If that fails, proceeds to seek DECLARATORY JUDGMENT.
• If DECLARATORY JUDGMENT efforts are successful, requests State establish Stakeholder Work Group with membership of 1/4 to 1/5 people with relevant disabilities and lived experience to create plan within REASONABLE TIME FRAME to bring ACT  and or equally effective treatment to SCALE with MEASURABLE (NUMERIC) GOALS.
• DEMAND LETTER should also include request for STAKEHOLDER GROUP.  

​That process could be re-created for things like SCATTERED SITE  HOUSING for People with Disabilities.

WHERE ARE WE GETTING THE STAKEHOLDER GROUP and the 1/5 to 1/4 percentage of members to be people with relevant disabilities and lived experience?

• Inclusion of People with Mental Illness In Public Policy
  • ​​​In the past, we have thrown out 1/4 of State stakeholder membership have "lived experience."
             This has been problematic in the context of:
    • criminal justice and mental health, and
    • the Colorado Mental Health Institute @ Pueblo.

See generally :

• INCLUSION OF PEOPLE WITH MENTAL ILLNESS IN PUBLIC POLICY & ALL THINGS AFFECTING THEM IS VITAL -- ​NOTHING ABOUT US WITHOUT US
• ​Inclusion

If the State refuses those demands, then seeking INJUNCTIVE and PERMANENT RELIEF could be the next step.

NOTE:  We're NOT WARRANTING ANYTHING.  THERE are NO GUARANTEES.