Center for Public Representation 1999

    It is well-known in correctional circles that inmates with mental disorders are less likelyto be granted parole. In light of Pennsylvania Department of Corrections v. Yeskey, 524 U.S.206 (1998), it is now established that the ADA applies to prisoners, including prisonersseeking parole. Bogovich v. Sandoval, - F.3d -, 1999 WL 669062 (9th Cir. 1999)(denial ofparole based on past substance abuse history may violate the ADA). Thus, in Louraine v.Massachusetts Parole Board, (Suffolk Superior Ct., No. 96-6896)(April 30, 1999), the courtstruck down a Massachusetts statute that categorically denied parole eligibility to inmatesconfined in the state's maximum security forensic hospital on grounds that the statutediscriminated against prisoners with mental illness in violation of the ADA. As a consequenceof the Louraine decision, Massachusetts parole authorities are receiving special training fromthe Department of Mental Health and have also undertaken to ensure that individuals withsubstantial mental disorders receive representation at their parole hearings. The ADA mayalso require parole authorities to accommodate parolees with mental disorders by assistingthem to obtain government benefits, find housing and employment, and obtain counseling inthe community, even though parole staff do not routinely provide such services. Cf. Wakefieldv. Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. 1999)(Eighth Amendment mandates that prison provideparolee with supply of prescribed psychotropic medication upon his release). The ADA doesnot, however, prohibit a parole board from conditioning parole upon the inmate's willingnessto participate in therapy or take prescribed medication if the inmate is only likely to control hisdangerous behavior with ongoing treatment.