42 U.S.C. § 10807
Legal actions
1991—Pub. L. 102–173 substituted “individual with mental illness” for “mentally ill individual” in subsecs. (a) and (b).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1991–2025 · leading case: Indiana Prot. & Advocacy Servs. v. Indiana Fam. & Soc. Servs. Admin., 603 F.3d 365 (7th Cir. 2010).
Indiana Prot. & Advocacy Servs. v. Indiana Fam. & Soc. Servs. Admin., 603 F.3d 365 (7th Cir. 2010). “42 U.S.C. § 10807 (a). The PAIMI Act requires that the designated system, whether it is a public or private entity, “shall be independent of any agency which provides treatment or services (other than advocacy services) to individuals with mental illness” 42 U.”
Dunn v. Dunn, 219 F. Supp. 3d 1163 (M.D. Ala. 2016). “11 PAIMI explicitly addresses the issue of exhaustion by P & As prior to the initiation of legal action in 42 U.S.C. § 10807 , which provides: “(a) Prior to instituting any legal action in a Federal or State court on behalf of an individual with mental illness, an eligible…”
Parent/Prof'l Advocacy League v. City of Springfield, 934 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 2019). “" 42 U.S.C. § 10807 (a). This provision contemplates suits on behalf of "an individual with mental illness.”
Disability Rights Montana, Inc v. Mike Batista, 930 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2019). “42 U.S.C. § 10807 (a). Plaintiff DRM is the PAIMI agency for Montana.”
Ind. Prot. & Adv. Servs. v. Ind. Fam. & Soc., 603 F.3d 365 (7th Cir. 2010). “42 U.S.C. § 10807 (a). The PAIMI Act requires that the designated system, whether it is a public or private entity, "shall be independent of any agency which provides treatment or services (other than advocacy services) to individuals with mental illness" 42 U.”
Oregon Advocacy Ctr. v. Mink, 322 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2003). “” 42 U.S.C. § 10807 (a). Such an organization may bring suit without exhausting administrative remedies if the organization determines that such remedies will not resolve the matter within a reasonable time, or if the suit is brought "to prevent or eliminate imminent serious…”
Off. of Prot. & Advocacy for Persons With Disabilities v. Armstrong, 266 F. Supp. 2d 303 (D. Conn. 2003). “” 42 U.S.C. § 10807 . PAMII indicates, however, that “[i]f, in pursuing administrative remedies, the [P & A] determines that any matter with respect to such individual will not be resolved within a reasonable time, the [P & A] may pursue alternative remedies, including the…”
Advocacy Ctr. v. Stalder, 128 F. Supp. 2d 358 (M.D. La. 1999). “42 U.S.C. § 10807 24 . Id. 25 . Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program, 894 F.”
In the Interest of A. V. B., 474 S.E.2d 114 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996). “The juvenile court erred in finding that GAO had not *243 exhausted its administrative remedies under 42 USC § 10807 , and in dismissing GAO’s deprivation petition.”
Michigan Prot. & Advocacy Serv., Inc. v. Flint Cmty. Schs., 146 F. Supp. 3d 897 (E.D. Mich. 2015). “” 42 U.S.C. § 10807 (a). The defendants were unable or unwilling, on repeated occasions, to complete any satisfactory response to the plaintiffs record requests in a timely manner, and they therefore forfeited any right they had to handle the resulting record access disputes…”
Cunningham v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 222 F. Supp. 3d 959 (D. Colo. 2015). “§ 10805 (a)(1)(A) & (B); and 42 U.S.C. § 10807 . 505. CLA is not required to exhaust the Bureau of Prisons “Administrative Remedies Program” (ARP) under the PLRA, 42 U.”
Gonzalez v. Martinez, 756 F. Supp. 1533 (S.D. Fla. 1991). “.., shall exhaust in a timely manner all administrative remedies where appropriate.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.