[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":3,"doc-seo-199114-105":53,"doc-detail-199114-en":127},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,14,19,24,29,34,39,44,49],{"id":8,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":11,"show_sort_weight":12,"slug":13},11,1,"Template","Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":15,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":16,"show_sort_weight":17,"slug":18},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":20,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":21,"show_sort_weight":22,"slug":23},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":25,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":26,"show_sort_weight":27,"slug":28},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":30,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":31,"show_sort_weight":32,"slug":33},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":35,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":36,"show_sort_weight":37,"slug":38},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":40,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":41,"show_sort_weight":42,"slug":43},18,"Letters",30,"letters",{"id":45,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":46,"show_sort_weight":47,"slug":48},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":50,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":51,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":52},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":54,"data":55},"ok",{"site_id":56,"language":57,"slug":58,"title":59,"keywords":60,"description":61,"schema_data":62,"social_meta":120,"head_meta":122,"extra_data":124,"updated_unix":126},105,"en","statement-of-interest-of-the-united-states-doj-case-210-cv-1119","Statement of Interest of the United States - DOJ Case 2:10-cv-1119","","Statement of Interest submitted by the United States in an action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. The filing addresses the legal framework under the ADA, including Olmstead and the integration mandate, and evaluates the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction. It summarizes relevant facts regarding Sacramento County’s outpatient mental health services, including planned transitions from contracted regional support teams to county-operated clinics. The document argues plaintiffs are likely to prevail, face irreparable harm absent relief, and that the balance of hardships and public interest support an injunction.",{"@graph":63,"@context":119},[64,80,102],{"@type":65,"itemListElement":66},"BreadcrumbList",[67,71,74,77],{"item":68,"name":69,"@type":70,"position":9},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":72,"name":10,"@type":70,"position":73},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/",2,{"item":75,"name":41,"@type":70,"position":76},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/letters/",3,{"item":78,"name":59,"@type":70,"position":79},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/statement-of-interest-of-the-united-states-doj-case-210-cv-1119/199114/",4,{"url":78,"name":59,"@type":81,"image":82,"author":87,"headline":59,"publisher":90,"fileFormat":93,"inLanguage":57,"description":61,"dateModified":94,"datePublished":95,"encodingFormat":93,"isAccessibleForFree":96,"interactionStatistic":97},"DigitalDocument",{"url":83,"@type":84,"width":85,"height":86},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/statement-of-interest-of-the-united-states-doj-case-210-cv-1119/199114.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":88,"@type":89},"Skyler","Person",{"url":68,"name":91,"@type":92},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-07","2026-09-04",true,{"@type":98,"interactionType":99,"userInteractionCount":101},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":100},"ViewAction",8,{"@type":103,"mainEntity":104},"FAQPage",[105,111,115],{"name":106,"@type":107,"acceptedAnswer":108},"What court and case does the United States Statement of Interest relate to?","Question",{"text":109,"@type":110},"The Statement of Interest is filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California in case No. 2:10-cv-1119 JAM-EFB.","Answer",{"name":112,"@type":107,"acceptedAnswer":113},"What issue does the filing address regarding the ADA?",{"text":114,"@type":110},"It focuses on the ADA’s Olmstead integration mandate and whether the plaintiffs satisfy requirements for a preliminary injunction.",{"name":116,"@type":107,"acceptedAnswer":117},"How does the document evaluate the plaintiffs’ request for preliminary injunctive relief?",{"text":118,"@type":110},"It argues plaintiffs are likely to prevail on their Title II claims, will suffer irreparable harm without an injunction, and that the balance of hardships and public interest favor granting relief.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":78,"og:type":121,"og:title":59,"og:site_name":91,"og:description":61},"article",{"robots":123,"canonical":78},"index,follow",{"doc_id":125,"site_id":56},199114,1788504794,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":128},{"doc_id":125,"user_id":129,"nickname":88,"user_avatar":130,"doc_module":9,"category_id":40,"category_name":41,"doc_title":59,"doc_description":61,"doc_content":131,"file_id":132,"file_url":133,"file_type":134,"file_size":135,"view_count":101,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":9,"is_downloadable":9,"audit_status":9,"page_count":136,"language":137,"language_code":57,"site_id":56,"html_lang":57,"table_of_contents":138,"faqs":139,"seo_title":140,"seo_description":61,"update_tm":126,"read_time":141},2336464648746,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_276721f389ce27ea32af1340a28f341c","1  \n2  \n3  \n4  \n5  \n6  \n7  \n8  \n9  \n10  \n11  \n12  \n13  \n14  \n15  \n16  \n17  \n18  \n19  \n20  \n21  \n22  \n23  \n24  \n25  \n26  \n27  \n28  \nCase 2:10-cv-01119-JAM-EFB Document 104 Filed 07/19/10 Page 1 of 29  \nTHOMAS E. PEREZ, Assistant Attorney General  \nSAMUEL R. BAGENSTOS, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General JOHN L. WODATCH, Chief  \nPHILIP L. BREEN, Special Legal Counsel RENEE M. WOHLENHAUS, Deputy Chief REGAN RUSH, Trial Attorney  \nU.S. Department of Justice  \n950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. -NYA Washington, D.C. 20530  \nTelephone: (202) 616-2726  \nATTORNEYS FOR UNITED STATES  \nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT  \nEASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA  \nLESLIE NAPPPER, JANET FISCHER, JACQUIE EICHHORN-SMITH, TED YANELLO, and LYNN MANGIO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,  \nPlaintiffs,  \nv.  \nCOUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; County Supervisor ROGER DICKINSON; County Supervisor JIMMIE YEE; County Supervisor SUSAN PETERS; County Supervisor ROBERTA MACGLASHAN; County Supervisor DON NOTTOLI; SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES; ANN EDWARDS-BUCKLEY, Director, Department of Behavioral Health Services; MARY ANN BENNETT, Mental Health Director,  \nDefendants.  \nCase No. 2:10-cv-1119 JAM-EFB  \nSTATEMENT OF INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES  \nDate: July 21, 2010  \nTime: 9:30 a.m.  \nPlace: Courtroom 6, 14th Floor  \nJudge: Hon. John A. Mendez  \nStatement of Interest of the United States  \n1  \n2  \n3  \n4  \n5  \n6  \n7  \n8  \n9  \n10  \n11  \n12  \n13  \n14  \n15  \n16  \n17  \n18  \n19  \n20  \n21  \n22  \n23  \n24  \n25  \n26  \n27  \n28  \nCase 2:10-cv-01119-JAM-EFB Document 104 Filed 07/19/10 Page 2 of 29  \nI INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1  \nII SUMMARY OF FACTS ............................................................................................................... 2  \nA. Sacramento County’s Current Outpatient Mental Health Services are Provided through County Contracted Regional Support Teams....................................................... 2  \nB. Sacramento County’s Plan to Transition All Clients From the County Contracted Regional Support Teams to County Operated Clinics....................................................... 3  \nIII ARGUMENT…............................................................................................................................. 5  \nA. Olmstead and the Integration Mandate.............................................................................. 5  \nB. Plaintiffs Satisfy the Requirements for a Preliminary Injunction...................................... 7  \n1. Plaintiffs Are Likely to Prevail on Their Title II Claims ............................................. 8  \na. Maintaining the Level and Quality of Services is Essential Because the Proposed Plan Puts Plaintiffsat Risk of Institutionalization in Violation of the ADA .................................... 8  \nb. Providing Adequate Community Services Will Cost Sacramento County Less Money......................................................................................... 14  \nc. The County's Timeframe and Implementation Plan is Insufficient to Ensure Successful Transition in Violation of the ADA .................................. 15  \n2. Plaintiffs Will Suffer Irreparable Harm if Defendants Are Not Enjoined .................. 17  \n3. The Balance of Hardships Tips in Plaintiffs’ Favor .................................................... 21  \n4. Granting a Preliminary Injunction is in the Public Interest ......................................... 22  \nC. Plaintiffs Raise a Justiciable Issue ................................................................................... 22  \nIV CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................ 24  \nStatement of Interest of the United States  \ni  \n1  \n2  ","cbCaitrynP1xMUqF","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaitrynP1xMUqF","pdf",161962,29,"English","# I INTRODUCTION\n# II SUMMARY OF FACTS\n## A. Sacramento County’s Current Outpatient Mental Health Services through County Contracted Regional Support Teams\n## B. Transition Plan from Contracted Regional Support Teams to County Operated Clinics\n# III ARGUMENT\n## A. Olmstead and the Integration Mandate\n## B. Plaintiffs Satisfy the Requirements for a Preliminary Injunction\n## C. Plaintiffs Raise a Justiciable Issue\n# IV CONCLUSION","[{\"question\":\"What court and case does the United States Statement of Interest relate to?\",\"answer\":\"The Statement of Interest is filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California in case No. 2:10-cv-1119 JAM-EFB.\"},{\"question\":\"What issue does the filing address regarding the ADA?\",\"answer\":\"It focuses on the ADA’s Olmstead integration mandate and whether the plaintiffs satisfy requirements for a preliminary injunction.\"},{\"question\":\"How does the document evaluate the plaintiffs’ request for preliminary injunctive relief?\",\"answer\":\"It argues plaintiffs are likely to prevail on their Title II claims, will suffer irreparable harm without an injunction, and that the balance of hardships and public interest favor granting relief.\"}]","Statement of Interest of the United States - DOJ Case 2:10-cv-1119 | PDF",10]