Drafting the Case: The Parallel Legacies of Wyatt V. Stickney and Lynch V. Baxley‪.‬

INTRODUCTION Wyatt v. Stickney began as a state court lawsuit challenging the dismissal of ninety-nine Alabama Department of Mental Health professional employees in the wake of budget cuts deemed "necessary to bring the expenditures at Bryce Hospital within the framework of available resources." (1) Simultaneously, a federal court case was filed that focused on the "adequacy of care" issue. (2) The original complaints made no claim that inadequate treatment had been afforded patients in the past and did not clearly appeal to the court to declare that the "right to treatment" existed. (3) While the employees obtained preliminary injunctive relief in the state action, Plaintiffs' counsel determined, partly because of in-chambers comments by Judge Frank M. Johnson, Jr., that the pursuit of the employee claims in federal court would be futile unless it could be established that the dismissed employees were necessary to insure the delivery of treatment due to Bryce patients. (4) Thus, the state court litigation was abandoned and the federal action became the vehicle for determining whether adequate treatment was being provided by the state of Alabama, and whether lack of staff and facilities was a defense. (5) What began as an employment case became litigation brought on behalf of patients at Bryce Hospital. (6) On the day of the initial evidentiary hearing, the complaint was amended to allege that patients at Bryce Hospital were not being provided adequate treatment in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. (7)