Judge Joanna Seybert
Plaintiffs’ 2011 amended complaint asserted claims under 42 USC §1983 against the so-called ADD Defendants and State Defendants; negligence claims against the ADD Defendants and the IGHL Defendants; and claims under 42 USC §§1985, 1986 and the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act (PAIMI) as against all defendants. On March 22, 2013, the court granted the State Defendants dismissal. Neither Aid to the Developmentally Disabled Inc. (ADD) nor Individual Group Home Living Program Inc. (IGHL) were state actors for purposes of §§1983, 1985 and 1986. Nor was there was a private right of action under PAIMI. District court granted the ADD and IGHL Defendants’ April 2 and April 15 motions seeking dismissal of the federal claims against them under the “law of the case” doctrine. Plaintiffs did not dispute defendants’ claims that the constitutional claims under §§1983, 1985, 1986 and PAIMI must be dismissed based on the court’s conclusion that the ADA and IGHL Defendants were not state actors and that PAIMI creates no privately enforceable federal rights. Citing Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill, the court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claims.
