1116 (9th Cir. 2011); 335 F.3d 1175, 1181 Fisher v. Oklahoma Health Care Auth., (10th Cir. 2003) (noting that in the decision supports a Olmstead “nothing conclusion that institutionalization is a prerequisite to enforcement of the ADA’s integration 784 F. Supp. 2d 1308, 1326 (M.D. Haddad v. Dudek, requirements”); to dismiss where plaintiff in community Fla. 2011) (denying defendants’ motion sued to prevent unnecessary institutionalization). Thus, the protections are not limited to those individuals who are ADA’s currently institutionalized. Order, ECF No. 77; Order ECF No. 113. As See also the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reasoned in Fisher v. Oklahoma Health Care the protections of the ADA would be meaningless if plaintiffs were required Auth., to segregate themselves by entering an institution before they could challenge an alleged discriminatory policy that threatens to force them into segregated isolation. 335 F.3d at 1181. Instead it is sufficient for a plaintiff to show that the challenged state action creates a serious risk of institutionalization. 663 F.3d at 1116; M.R., Pashby v. 2013 WL 7911829, at *10 who must enter institutions to obtain (“individuals Medicaid services for which they qualify may be able to raise successful Title II and Rehabilitation Act claims because they face a risk of institutionalization.”)
1116 (9th Cir. 2011); Fisher v. Oklahoma Health Care Auth., 335 F.3d 1175, 1181 (10th Cir. 2003) (noting that “nothing in the Olmstead decision supports a conclusion that institutionalization is a prerequisite to enforcement of the ADA’s integration requirements”); Haddad v. Dudek, 784 F. Supp. 2d 1308, 1326 (M.D. Fla. 2011) (denying defendants’ motion to dismiss where plaintiff in community sued to prevent unnecessary institutionalization). Thus, the ADA’s protections are not limited to those individuals who are currently institutionalized. See also Order, ECF No. 77; Order ECF No. 113. As the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reasoned in Fisher v. Oklahoma Health Care Auth., the protections of the ADA would be meaningless if plaintiffs were required to segregate themselves by entering an institution before they could challenge an alleged discriminatory policy that threatens to force them into segregated isolation. 335 F.3d at 1181. Instead it is sufficient for a plaintiff to show that the challenged state action creates a serious risk of institutionalization. M.R., 663 F.3d at 1116; Pashby v. 2013 WL 7911829, at *10 (“individuals who must enter institutions to obtain Medicaid services for which they qualify may be able to raise successful Title II and Rehabilitation Act claims because they face a risk of institutionalization.”)
hunter_olmstead_soi.docx