From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

S.H. and P.F. v. Edwards

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Sep 28, 1989
886 F.2d 292 (11th Cir. 1989)

Summary

affirming district court's denial of "plaintiffs' claims for relief in the nature of habilitation in the least restrictive environment in accordance with the recommendation of professional treatment staff"

Summary of this case from Evans v. Fenty

Opinion

No. 87-8635.

September 28, 1989.

Phyllis J. Holmen, Georgia Legal Services Program, Jonathan A. Zimring, Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiffs-appellants.

Jefferson James Davis, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Vivian Davidson Egan, Carol Cosgrove, Sen. Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, Ga., for defendants-appellees.

Steven J. Schwartz, Center for Public Representation, Northampton, Mass., Judith Gran, Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia, David Ferleger, Philadelphia, Pa., for amicus curiae, Ass'n for Retarded Citizens of U.S., et. al.

Alice K. Nelson, Jodi Siegel, Southern Legal Counsel, Inc., Gainesville, Fla., for amicus curiae Advocacy Center for Person with Disabilities, Inc., et al.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia; Horace T. Ward, Judge.

Before RONEY, Chief Judge, and TJOFLAT, HILL, FAY, VANCE, KRAVITCH, JOHNSON, HATCHETT, ANDERSON, CLARK, EDMONDSON and COX, Circuit Judges.


This case is before the court on a very limited certificate issued by the district court under Rule 54(b) (Fed.R.Civ.P.). The only claim involved is the "plaintiffs' claims for relief in the nature of habilitation in the least restrictive environment in accordance with the recommendation of professional treatment staff." The district court denied the claim. We affirm that part of the district court opinion.

This ruling is not to be interpreted as involving anything other than the one issue presented. Nor should this ruling be interpreted as limiting in any way the relief that is available to the named plaintiffs or individual members of the class should they prove that habilitation in a community setting is required to comply with the law of this circuit that persons so confined by given "minimally adequate" care in accordance with professional standards. Wyatt v. Aderholt, 503 F.2d 1305 (5th Cir. 1974).


Summaries of

S.H. and P.F. v. Edwards

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Sep 28, 1989
886 F.2d 292 (11th Cir. 1989)

affirming district court's denial of "plaintiffs' claims for relief in the nature of habilitation in the least restrictive environment in accordance with the recommendation of professional treatment staff"

Summary of this case from Evans v. Fenty
Case details for

S.H. and P.F. v. Edwards

Case Details

Full title:S.H. AND P.F., INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

Date published: Sep 28, 1989

Citations

886 F.2d 292 (11th Cir. 1989)

Citing Cases

L.C. v. Olmstead

Nor do any of the cases cited by the State require a different conclusion. The State relies heavily on our…

Wyatt, by and Through Rawlins v. King

Specifically, the defendants interpret Romeo as a rejection of the requirement that the state use the least…