Please read the below case and answer the last three questions at the end of the article (A,B,C. in bold ). Thanks

You have been appointed a federal district court judge, and you have just received your first big case, a class action lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the State of Pacifica by 400 developmentally disabled individuals residing or formerly residing in Pacifica's four psychiatric hospitals. The complaint seeks compensatory damages, injunctive relief, and any other appropriate relief. Pacifica has waived its right to a Jury trial on any damage issues and has waived any sovereign immunity defense (that is. Pacifica consents to be sued for damages even though it is a state defendant)

After a trial on the merits, you determine the following facts: Approximately half of the developmentally disabled class members currently at the hospitals have no diagnosis of mental illness. Developmental disability involves difficulty and slowness in learning and delayed development of intellectual functioning: mental illness, on the other hand, involves a mental disturbance of emotions or thinking, from whatever cause, which interferes with a person's ability to handle life situations. Individuals suffering from developmental disability can be trained and educated to function more independently, a process termed 'habilitation.'

Most of the class members who have developmental disabilities have been confined to the general psychiatric wards side-by-side with mentally ill patients: only one Of the four hospitals has a separate unit for developmentally disabled people who are not mentally Ill. There is a professional consensus that developmentally disabled people who are continuously exposed to mentally ill patients begin to 'model' the dysfunctional behaviors of the mentally dl patients with 'whom they are confined. There is also a professional consensus that the developmentally disabled should receive habilitation and should not be housed with the mentally ill.

Conditions are otherwise deplorable for class members. Those class members confined with the mentally ill have been physically injured by the mentally ill. In addition, some class members have been seriously endangered and Injured by the use of antipsychotic drugs, which are not appropriate to treat developmental disability in the absence of mental illness. Many of the class members also have been unnecessarily confined In locked wards of psychiatric hospitals.

You then examine the substantive law:

In Youngberg v. Romero (1982). the Supreme Court held that a developmentally disabled individual In-state custody "enjoys constitutionally protected interests in conditions of reasonable care and safety, reasonable nonrestrictive confinement conditions, and such training as may be required by those Interests.' You hold that Pacifica has violated the Youngberg standard, and you ask the plaintiffs to propose appropriate remedies.

Plaintiffs propose the following:

A. Each class member shall receive $10,000 per year spent in Pacifiy3 hospitals in damages to compensate for past pain and suffering caused by Pacifica's unconstitutional treatment and for any loss of dignity. B. Because plaintiffs would suffer irreparable injury, the court issues an injunction as follows:

1. Pacifica shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that class members (1) do not suffer physical violence while in Pacifica's care: (2) do not receive antipsychotic drugs unless medically indicated: and (3) are not unnecessarily confined.

2. Pacifica shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that developmentally disabled class members who are not mentally ill are separated from mentally ill hospital patients so that they may undergo habilitation during the period they remain at a Pacifica hospital. As used in this Paragraph, reasonable steps" means () housing the developmentally disabled class members who are not mentally ill in a segregated ward or (ii) building such a ward if no such ward is currently available.

3. Pacifica. at its own expense, shall provide developmentally disabled class members who are no longer at a Pacific. hospital and those class members later released from a Pacifica hospital, with habilitation and vouchers for food and shelter (in an amount sufficient to pay for reasonable food and shelter) for a period 01 10 years from the date of this injunction or from the date of release, whichever is later.

C. If Pacifica violates the injunction set forth in B.2 above in any way, whether knowingly or not, it shall pay a $20,000 fine for each violation.

A. Evaluate Proposed Remedy A. Does the law permit you to grant this remedy if you choose to do so?

B. Evaluate the three parts of Proposed Remedy B. Does the law permit you to grant these remedies if you choose to do so? Discuss each part separately.

C. Evaluate Proposed Remedy C. Does the law permit you to grant this remedy if you choose to do so?