Johnson v. State of FL

[PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-13499 October 29, 2003
________________________ THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 87-00369-CV-T-24

MILLER FRANK JOHNSON, LLOYD KOGER, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

STATE OF FLORIDA, et al.,
Intervenor-Defendants,

KATHLEEN KEARNEY, Secretary,
Department of Children and Families,
Intervenor-Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

No. 02-14670
________________________

D. C. Docket No. 87-00369-CV-T-24

MILLER FRANK JOHNSON, LLOYD KOGER, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DICK BRADLEY, G. PIERCE WOOD MEMOR, et al.,

Defendants-Appellants,

STATE OF FLORIDA, JEB BUSH, Governor of
the State of Florida, et al.,
Intervenor-Defendants-Appellants.

________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________

(October 29, 2003)

Before ANDERSON and COX, Circuit Judges, and NANGLE*, District Judge.

ANDERSON, Circuit Judge:

These consolidated cases arise out of litigation against the State of Florida

(“the State”) over conditions at a former state-run mental health facility, G. Pierce

Wood Memorial Hospital (“GPW”), which closed in February 2002. In the first

case, #02-13499 (“the Consent Decree case”), the State1 challenges the district

*
Honorable John F. Nangle, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of
Missouri, sitting by designation.
1
The principal named Defendant, Bradley, is the former Superintendent of GPW.
Because the suit is in substance one against the State of Florida, “the State” will be used to refer

2
court's refusal to lift all conditions of a Consent Decree under which GPW was

subject to court-supervised monitoring. The Consent Decree was entered to settle

litigation between a plaintiff class of patients and the State regarding conditions of

confinement, treatment and release at the hospital. In the second case, #02-14670

(“the attorney fee case”), the State challenges the district court's order refusing to

award attorneys' fees incurred in defending claims brought by the Justice

Department as Intervenor on behalf of the patients. The State won on all counts at

a bench trial, and claims it is statutorily entitled to attorney fees as the prevailing

party.

I. BACKGROUND

Until its closure, GPW was a state-run hospital for the mentally ill, at which

approximately 85 percent of the patients were involuntarily committed by court

order under a Florida statute known as the “Baker Act.” A group of patients at

GPW brought a class action in the Middle District of Florida in November 1987,

alleging that the State was violating their constitutional rights by providing

substandard care and housing, and by failing to release them when they were

“discharge ready.” Specifically, the complaint alleged that the State: (1) violated

their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to discharge them into less

to the Defendants in the aggregate.

3
restrictive settings; (2) denied them procedural due process in violation of the

Fourteenth Amendment by arbitrarily revoking privileges without formal standards

and with no opportunity for challenge; (3) abridged their First, Ninth and

Fourteenth Amendment rights by arbitrarily restricting visitation privileges; (4)

infringed their right to counsel in violation of the First, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth

Amendments by failing to provide legal assistance or an adequate law library, and

(5) violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights by providing inadequate medical

staffing, recreation, vocational training, security and nutrition.

The court certified a class of “all persons who are now or will in the future

be committed” to GPW, and a subclass of present and future patients “who have

been determined by their treatment team to be