DOE v. THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS

Filing 233

ENTRY - ON PENDING MOTIONS; This matter is before the Court on several matters: A Motion for Contempt of Court against the Indiana State Board of Law Examiners, Motion for Contempt of Court and Motion for Judgment filed by Interested Pa rty Robert M. Shaw. There has been no order issued in this case which permits Mr. Shaw to obtain any of the relief sought in his post-judgment motions. Accordingly, Mr. Shaw's Motions Filing No. 221 Filing No. 228 and Filing No. 232 are DENIED. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 9/11/2015. Copy Mailed. (CKM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
AMANDA PERDUE on her own behalf and
on behalf of a class of those similarly situated,
and ACLU OF INDIANA - INDIANA
UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW INDIANAPOLIS CHAPTER,
Plaintiffs,
v.
THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE
INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW
EXAMINERS in their official capacities,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) Case No. 1:09-cv-00842-TWP-MJD
)
)
)
)
)
)

ENTRY ON PENDING MOTIONS
This matter is before the Court on several matters: a Motion for Contempt of Court against
the Indiana State Board of Law Examiners, (Filing. No. 221), Motion for Contempt of Court
(Filing. No. 228), and Motion for Judgment (Filing No. 232) filed by Interested Party Robert M.
Shaw (“Mr. Shaw”). For the reasons stated below, the Motions must be denied.
I.

BACKGROUND

This lawsuit began in 2009 when Plaintiff Amanda Perdue sued the Indiana State Board of
Law Examiners contending that they were violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”)
by requiring applicants to the Indiana bar to answer questions about their mental health history.
The ACLU of Indiana – Indiana University School of Law – Indianapolis Chapter later joined the
lawsuit as a plaintiff. Counsel of the ACLU of Indiana represented both Plaintiffs. (Filing No. 4,
Filing No. 39, and Filing No. 86.) This Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to certify a class and the
class definition includes:

[A]ll persons who will file an application to take the Indiana bar examination for
which any of the following are true: they have been diagnosed, since the age of 16
until the present, with or treated for any mental, emotional, or nervous disorder they
have a mental, emotional, or nervous condition or impairment which if untreated
could affect their ability to practice law in a competent and professional manner.
(Filing No. 192 at 1.) On October 6, 2011, this Court entered a Judgment that enjoined the Indiana

State Board of Law Examiners from using certain questions on the Indiana bar examination.
(Filing No. 193 at 1–2.)
Mr. Shaw seeks various forms of injunctive relief from the Court including a finding of
contempt against the members of the Indiana State Board of Law Examiners, his admission to the
Board under the ADA, striking down the fee of $875.00 which he alleges prevents out of state
applicants and people on Supplemental Security Income from practicing law in Indiana based on
limited income, and summary judgment “based on the fact of previous orders.” Mr. Shaw also
assets that he has recovered from a blood clot on the brain but is under doctors’ orders not to take
stressful tests, he has urination problems related to his diabetes, and he may have to undergo a
sleep apnea test. (Filing No. 232.)
II.

DISCUSSION

The Court is unable to entertain Mr. Shaw’s motions for several reasons. First, Mr. Shaw
is not a member of the plaintiff class. His motion to join the class prior to entry of final judgment
was denied as Mr. Shaw did not recite any mental health dimension and the Court found he was
not a member of the defined class. (See Filing No. 135 and Filing No. 137.) Further, no motion
to intervene has been filed since entry of final judgment. Second, the final judgment entered on
October 6, 2011 did not award Mr. Shaw any relief, did not adjudicate any claim asserted by Mr.
Shaw, and did not create or modify conditions under which Mr. Shaw would become licensed to
practice law in the State of Indiana. These circumstances have not been altered by any of the postjudgment filings or rulings.
2

Finally, Mr. Shaw lacks standing to seek the relief which is sought in his post-judgment
motions. Even if Mr. Shaw were a member of the class, he could not individually litigate the filed
motions. The Court certified this lawsuit as a class action and appointed counsel to represent the
class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). Class counsel represents both the named Plaintiffs and the class. (See
Filing No. 4, Filing No. 39, and Filing No. 86.) Therefore, only class counsel may seek relief for
the class because individual class members “lack standing to individually litigate matters relating
to the class action.” McNeil v. Guthrie, 945 F.2d 1163, 1166 (10th Cir. 1991). Mr. Shaw cannot
overlay his personal circumstances and desires on the relief awarded to the plaintiff class in this
case, instead, he must initiate a separate action for his claim that he has suffered discrimination
because of his physical disabilities.
III. CONCLUSION
There has been no order issued in this case which permits Mr. Shaw to obtain any of the
relief sought in his post-judgment motions. Accordingly, Mr. Shaw’s Motions (Filing No. 221,
Filing No. 228 and Filing No. 232) are DENIED.

SO ORDERED.
Date: 9/11/2015

DISTRIBUTION:
Kenneth J. Falk
ACLU OF INDIANA
[e-mail]

Anthony W. Overholt
FROST BROWN TODD LLC
[e-mail]

Darren A. Craig
FROST BROWN TODD LLC
[e-mail]

3

Robert M. Shaw
1215 North Jefferson Avenue
Indianapolis, Indiana 46201

4