Liability of Public Officials for Care of Mentally Ill Inmates in Correctional Setting

Saylor v. Nebraska, 812 F.3d 637 (8th Cir. 2016), as amended (Mar. 4, 2016)

Claim by jail inmate with mental illness against jail doctors and staff under 42 USC § 1983 did not establish deliberate indifference required under the Eighth Amendment to establish liability. Summary judgment granted to all defendants based upon qualified immunity.

Background: James Saylor sued the State of Nebraska, the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services (“NDCS”), Correct Care, LLC, and several individuals alleging violations of his First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Saylor alleged that defendants acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs by failing properly to treat him for PTSD. He claimed that his level of care at Nebraska State Prison was so low as to constitute cruel and unusual punishment. The district court dismissed Saylor’s claims against the State of Nebraska and the NDCS and the claims for monetary relief against the individual defendants in their official capacities. The district court then denied the remaining defendants’ motions for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity.

Holdings: On appeal, the Eighth Circuit reversed, holding that there were not genuine disputes concerning “the predicate facts material to the qualified immunity issue.” Because the Court found that the record showed that all defendants “met Saylor’s medical needs beyond the minimum standard required,” there was no deprivation of Saylor’s Eighth Amendment rights. Thus, defendants were entitled to qualified immunity.

Notable Points:

Qualified immunity for non-medical defendants: In order to overcome a defense of qualified immunity for the non-medical defendants, a plaintiff must show that supervisors had direct responsibility for the alleged violations, had actual knowledge of the violation, or gave tacit authorization for the violation. The Court held that the non-medical prison supervisors who approved Saylor’s transfer were not indifferent to his PTSD in violation of the Eight Amendment because Saylor provided “no specific evidence that they were involved in, or directly responsible for, his allegedly insufficient medical care.”

Qualified immunity for medical defendants: In order to overcome a defense of qualified immunity for the medical defendants, a plaintiff must show that defendants were personally responsible for violations, or were responsible for a systematic condition that violated Constitution. Here, the Court held that the State prison’s medical staff was not deliberately indifferent to Saylor’s PTSD even though Saylor argued that he received treatment that rose to the level of cruel and unusual punishment after his original treating physician left. Records showed that medical staff provided beyond the minimum standard required after his previous treater left, first providing Saylor with another physician at the same facility and then ultimately a physiatrist at a different facility. They also continued his medication consistent with their independent medical judgment. The staff also granted Saylor’s request for a private cell and sought his agreement for certain deviations from his original treatment plan.

Found in Found in DMHL Volume 35, Issue 1

Liability of Public Entities in Caring for Persons during Involuntary Commitment Process

Anderson v. Marshall Cty., Miss., No. 15-60051, 2016 WL 143303 (5th Cir. Jan. 12, 2016) (per curiam)

Estate of mentally ill person, who was taken into involuntary custody due to mental health crisis and later died in County Sheriff Department’s custody, failed to meet requirements for claims against hospital and County under 42 USC § 1983, as evidence did not demonstrate that defendants had a policy or practice amounting to deliberate indifference, as required under Monell. 

Background: After Princess Anderson arrived at a hospital in Marshall County Mississippi, she became increasingly agitated and physical with emergency room staff. Anderson tested positive for marijuana and opiates, and was diagnosed with acute psychosis. After a mental health evaluation, it was determined that Anderson required psychological care, but she refused voluntary admission. The chancery court granted the doctors’ request to have Anderson involuntarily committed and ordered the DeSoto County sheriff to take custody of her. Because Anderson was a resident of Marshall County, she was transported from DeSoto to Marshall County jail on Tuesday, February 8th. On arrival, DeSoto deputies told the Marshall County jail officer that Anderson had become agitated during the transport requiring that she be restrained. The Marshall jail officer did not review Anderson’s medical records (believing she was not entitled to view Anderson’s health information), and Anderson was placed in a cell. Although other inmates reported that Anderson needed emergency medical attention, she was not taken to a hospital until Friday, February 11th when Anderson’s mother arrived at the jail to take her to a hospital for follow-up tests. Shortly after arriving there, Anderson died of multisystem organ failure. Her mother, Angela Anderson, sued Marshall County and the Sheriff for violations of Princess Anderson’s rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court determined that there was no § 1983 violation.

Holding: The Fifth Circuit held per curiam that Angela Anderson did not meet “the high bar required for Monell liability” under § 1983 and upheld the district court’s grant of summary judgment against her. On the failure to train claim, the Court held that the plaintiff failed to establish that Marshall County acted with deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of inmates when adopting its training procedures. The Court also found the single incident exception to Monell’s general requirement of a pattern of unconstitutional conduct was not applicable given the evidence presented by the plaintiff.

Notable Points:

Plaintiff did not show evidence of a pattern of deliberate indifference: Anderson came forward with no evidence to show or allege a pattern of deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of prisoners in Marshall County’s training, policies, or procedures. Without evidence of a pattern, Marshall County could not be found to have been on notice that its current training was producing unconstitutional results. Absent a pattern, the plaintiff must show deliberate indifference through the single incident exception.

Plaintiff’s evidence was not sufficient to meet § 1983’s single incident exception: The single incident exception would require that Marshall County’s training be so inadequate that the county was on notice that an untrained officer would have neglected a prisoner in the way Marshall jail officer was alleged to have done. The Fifth Circuit reiterated that “it is not enough to say that more or different training or supervision would have prevented Princess’s injuries.” It is almost always the case that more or better training could have prevented a poor outcome, so that cannot be enough to subject a county to governmental liability. Specifically, the Court said that, given the training provided, Marshall County “could not have anticipated that Officer Anderson and other correctional officers would ignore Princess’s litany of obvious ailments.”

Found in Found in DMHL Volume 35, Issue 1

Firearms Regulation

Kolbe v. Hogan, 813 F.3d 160 (4th Cir. 2016) reh'g en banc granted, No. 14-1945, 2016 WL 851670 (4th Cir. Mar. 4, 2016) 

Claims that a state regulation of the possession and use of firearms violates the Second Amendment must pass a “strict scrutiny” review. [Editor Note: This case does not discuss mental illness, but it appears that the standard would apply to firearms restrictions on persons with mental illness.]

Background: The Firearm Safety Act ([FSA] passed by Maryland in 2013) banned even law-abiding citizens, except for retired law enforcement officers, from buying or possessing most kinds of semi-automatic rifles. Plaintiffs challenged several provisions of the FSA on the theory that its restrictions on “assault weapons” and larger-capacity detachable magazines (LCMs) entrenched upon core Second Amendment rights. Further, plaintiffs alleged that the exception for retired law enforcement officers violated the Equal Protection Clause. The district court upheld the constitutionality of the FSA under the intermediate scrutiny standard and denied the plaintiffs’ Equal Protection claims.

Holding: On appeal, the Fourth Circuit held that Maryland’s FSA implicated “the core protection of the Second Amendment” as articulated in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2010). Because the Fourth Circuit found that the FSA placed a substantial burden on a core constitutional right, it vacated the lower court opinion and announced strict scrutiny as the applicable standard for review of the plaintiffs’ Second Amendment Claims. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the denial of the plaintiffs’ Equal Protection challenge, as well as the lower court’s finding that the FSA was not unconstitutionally vague.

Notable Points:

Strict scrutiny is the proper standard for challenging firearm restrictions under the Second Amendment: The lower court erred in applying intermediate scrutiny to the challenged firearm restriction. Strict scrutiny is the proper standard because the FSA ban on semi-automatic rifles and larger-capacity magazines restricts the availability of a class of arms used for “self-defense in the home.” That restriction implicates the “core” of the Second Amendment. Because the challenged provisions of the FSA substantially, rather than incidentally, burden that core right, strict scrutiny, rather than intermediate scrutiny, is the proper standard.

The FSA’s exception for retired law enforcement officers did not violate the Equal Protection Clause: Because retired police officers were not similarly situated with the public at large under the FSA, the grant of certain rights to those retired officers did not violate the Equal Protection Clause. Specifically, the court found that retired police officers (1) possess unique training and experience related to firearms and (2) are granted a “special degree of trust” that instills them with “an unusual ethos of public service.” These two factors make them not similarly situated with the public at large for Equal Protection purposes, and justify the exceptions and special provisions available to them under the FSA.

Found in DMHL Volume 35, Issue 1

Sex Offenders; Post-Sentence Civil Commitment

State v. LeMere, 879 N.W.2d 580 (Wis. 2016)

Wisconsin Supreme Court rejects offender’s post-conviction motion to withdraw his guilty plea to child sexual assault charges, where offender argued his attorney’s failure to advise him that he could be civilly committed as a violent sex offender violated his Sixth Amendment right.

Background: LeMere was charged with one count of first-degree sexual assault of a child under the age of 13, one count of second-degree reckless endangerment, and one count of strangulation and suffocation. A status conference became a plea hearing when counsel for the parties informed the court that they had negotiated a plea agreement. Under the agreement, LeMere agreed to plead guilty to first-degree sexual assault of a child under the age of 13 in exchange for the other two charges against him being dismissed. The court then informed LeMere about the consequences of a guilty plea, including the possibility of continued civil commitment after the completion of his criminal incarceration. LeMere indicated that he understood and the court noted that LeMere appeared capable of understanding the proceedings. At a subsequent sentencing hearing, the court ordered 30 years of initial confinement followed by 15 years of extended supervision. One year later LeMere filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea and vacate his conviction. He argued ineffective assistance of counsel because he was not informed of the possibility of lifetime civil commitment as a sexually violent person. The circuit court denied the motion and the court of appeals affirmed.

Holding: On appeal, the Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the failure to inform a defendant of the possibility of lifetime civil commitment does not form the basis of a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel and is not a violation of the Sixth Amendment.

Notable Points:

Failure to inform about the possibility of lifetime civil commitment as a sexually violent person distinguished from failure to inform about possibility of deportation: The Wisconsin Supreme Court distinguished this case from the failure to inform a defendant about the possibility of deportation, which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled was a violation of the Sixth Amendment. The Wisconsin Supreme Court emphasized that unlike deportation, civil commitment is not automatic or penal in nature. The court also explained that civil commitment is not meant to be permanent and is rehabilitative in nature.

Found in DMHL Volume 35, Issue 2

Involuntary Commitment; Constitutional Due Process

In re the Det. of M.W. & W.D. v. Dep’t Soc. & Health Serv., Washington, W. State Hosp., No. 90570-3, 2016 WL 3249495 (Wash. June 9, 2016) (en banc)

Washington Supreme Court upholds constitutionality of state statutory provisions authorizing commitment and re-commitment of individuals with mental illness on the grounds that they were charged with violent felonies and continued to present substantial likelihood of repeating similar acts, even after original charges dismissed on the grounds that the individuals were unrestorably incompetent to stand trial.

Background: The respondents' cases were unrelated but they were consolidated because they both challenged the constitutionality of involuntary recommitment. M.W. and W.D. were both charged with violent felonies and had their charges dismissed without prejudice after a judge determined that they were incompetent to stand trial and their competency could not be restored. In each case, the court ordered mental health evaluations to determine if they should be involuntarily committed, and each man was committed for 180 days of involuntary treatment. Prior to the expiration of the men’s commitments, the State utilized a new procedure for recommitting a person based on a judge’s finding that the person committed a violent felony. The new procedure allowed for recommitment in some circumstances based on a preliminary hearing, rather than a full evidentiary hearing, to determine whether “the person continues to suffer from a mental disorder or developmental disability that results in a substantial likelihood of committing acts similar to the charged criminal behavior.” The individual would then have the opportunity to rebut any findings through admissible expert testimony. The superior court commissioner declared the former statute unconstitutional and ordered the recommitment process to proceed without the unconstitutional provision. M.W. and W.D then received full evidentiary hearings assessing their eligibility for further involuntary treatment and were each recommitted to an additional 180-day period on other grounds.

Holding: On appeal, the Washington Supreme Court ruled that the procedure for involuntary commitment did not violate substantive or procedural due process, vagueness or equal protection. The court also ruled that the statute did not violate an individual’s right to a jury trial because the periods of commitment are short and the state has a high burden of proof for recommitment. The Washington Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the superior court and upheld the statute at issue as constitutional.

Found in DMHL Volume 35, Issue 2

Provider Liability; Claims by Third Parties

Kuligoski v. Brattleboro Retreat, 2016 VT 54 (Vt. 2016) 

Vermont Supreme Court rules that individuals who are known to residential and outpatient mental health providers as the caretakers of a patient have a right to be informed by those providers of the patient’s mental health status, his danger to the caretakers or others, and how to perform their caretaker role in light of these warnings; thus, a claim that the failure of the providers to so inform resulted in injury to the caretakers or other third parties survives a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

Background: In October 2010, E.R. was voluntarily admitted to the Psychiatric Department at Central Vermont Medical Center (CVMC) with a “psychotic disorder” after having threatened young children in his home. A few days later he was involuntarily committed with a diagnosis of schizophreniform disorder and was subsequently transferred to the Retreat, a nonprofit psychiatric hospital in Vermont. At the Retreat, there were reports indicating E.R. had auditory and visual hallucinations, menacing behavior, and homicidal and suicidal ideation. In November of 2010, E.R. was discharged from the Retreat with an aftercare treatment plan that was shared with his parents. In mid-December, E.R. told his mother that he had stopped taking his medication. His mother reported this to Northeast Kingdom Human Services (NKHS), part of his aftercare treatment plan, but was told that E.R. had to decide to take care of himself. Between mid-December 2010 and March 2011, E.R. did not meet with anyone from NKHS and no one from NKHS reached out to E.R. On February 26, 2011, E.R. assaulted Michael Kuligoski at an apartment building. Kuligoski sued both the Retreat and NKHS. The superior court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss concluding that the defendants owed no duty to plaintiffs under Peck v. Counseling Service of Addison County, Inc., 146 Vt. 61 (1985).

Holding: On appeal, the Supreme Court of Vermont held that the failure-to-warn claims against defendants were improperly dismissed, but that the failure-to-treat and negligentundertaking claims were properly dismissed. The court found that the defendants had a duty to provide information to parents, as patient's caretakers, to warn them of patient's risk of violence to themselves and others and to advise them on how to manage patient's conduct. However, the court concluded that neither defendant had a duty, as a matter of public protection, to refrain from releasing E.R.

Notable Points:

Peck and other precedents bar duty-to-treat and negligent-undertaking claims: The general rule is that there is no duty to control the conduct of another in order to protect a third person from harm. Previous Vermont cases held in favor of rehabilitation in a non-institutional setting, which precluded the plaintiffs’ duty-totreat and therefore duty not to release argument. Further, a negligent-undertaking claim requires plaintiffs to show that defendants’ failure to exercise reasonable care increased the risk of the harm that occurred. In this case, plaintiffs did not allege and could not show that defendants’ care increased the risk to third persons.

Peck extends to identifiable and foreseeable victims, and plaintiffs' duty-to-warn claims should not be dismissed at this stage in the litigation: The Court noted that Peck and Tarasoff established the clear duty of the mental health professional or institution to warn identifiable third parties of threats of harm made by patients, but that many courts have been reluctant to extend that duty beyond identifiable third parties. This reluctance, the Court wrote, was based on those courts’ recognition of the interests of the mental health profession in honoring the confidentiality of the patient-therapist relationship and in respecting the humanitarian and due process concerns that limit the involuntary hospitalization of the mentally ill. However, the Court went on, several courts have extended the duty to foreseeable victims or to those whose membership in a particular class—such as living with the patient— places them within a zone of danger. Here, the Court found that Peck is not limited to circumstances in which there is an identifiable victim. Rather, the defendants did have a duty to warn E.R.’s caretakers based on their assumption of custody and caretaking responsibilities of E.R.

Chief Justice Reiber’s dissent: The Chief Justice filed a strong dissent to defining a “new common-law duty” for mental health care providers: to train or assist caretakers in order to protect the public. Justice Skoglund also filed a dissent on the same grounds.

Found in DMHL Volume 35, Issue 2

Sex Offenders; Conditions of Probation

Vermont v. Cornell, 2016 VT 47 (Vt. 2016)

Vermont Supreme Court rules that certain probation conditions placed by the trial court on a convicted sex offender improperly infringe on the offender’s liberty, privacy and autonomy rights.

Background: Owen Cornell was convicted of lewd and lascivious behavior with a 12- year-old boy in 2013. His prison sentence was suspended and multiple probation conditions were imposed. Cornell appealed the conditions, arguing that the “boilerplate” restrictions were invalid for a number of reasons (e.g., not sufficiently individualized, in violation of due process rights, impermissible delegation of authority to his probation officer). On remand, the trial court took consideration of additional information submitted by Cornell and testimony from his probation officer, then issued 21 new probation conditions. Cornell objected to six of the conditions, arguing that four of them had already been deemed unlawful in previous cases and two of them infringed on his liberty, privacy and autonomy rights under the U.S. and Vermont Constitutions.

Holding: The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed two conditions (prohibition on violent or threatening behavior; prohibition from places where children are known to congregate) and remanded as to four conditions. The Court found the delegation of authority to the probation officer to dictate treatment requirements to be overbroad. The Court found the condition of requiring probation officer approval for living and working location to be insufficiently specific to Cornell. The Court also agreed with Cornell that the condition requiring him to give search and seizure privileges to his probation officer was unconstitutional because it did not require reasonable suspicion for such searches. Finally, the Court found the condition imposing a blanket restriction on computer use to be overly restrictive, given that Cornell did not utilize any such technology in his offense. Concerning the computer restriction condition, the Court summarized, “We do not see a sufficient justification for such a sweeping restriction, which would render nearly all the activities of life incalculably difficult in the modern age, when such a condition would not have prevented the crime of which [a defendant] was convicted” (internal quotations removed, quoting U.S. v. Barsumyan, 517 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2008)).

Notable Points:

Insufficiency of proof for “boilerplate” conditions: Prior to considering the specific challenges, the Court engaged in a brief excursus to note that the State’s “proof” concerning the appropriateness of probation conditions was insufficient, in that it merely rested upon the testimony of the probation officer that Cornell was a sex offender.

Balancing Fourth Amendment rights in sex offender cases: In the latter portion of the opinion the Court addressed the conditions that Cornell had argued infringed his liberty, privacy and autonomy rights. The Court discussed the balance of interests, including somewhat lessened rights of the probationer, but the overall need to narrowly tailor such conditions in order to avoid infringing liberty and privacy interests. The Vermont Supreme Court noted that some states (e.g., California, Indiana) have allowed suspicionless searches of probationers (and parolees), but that Vermont would continue to require reasonable suspicion for such searches.

Found in DMHL Volume 35, Issue 2

Juvenile Offenders; Knowing Waiver of Right Against Self-Incrimination

Ohio v. Barker, 2016 Ohio 2708 (Ohio 2016)

Ohio Supreme Court rules that Ohio law providing that recorded statements made by defendant in custodial setting are presumed to be voluntary violates juvenile’s right to due process and does not remove burden from the state to prove that waiver of right against self-incrimination was knowingly made. 

Background: In October 2011, Tyshawn Barker was questioned by police while in custody concerning the shooting deaths of two individuals. The detectives recorded the interrogation, read Barker the Miranda warnings, and asked him to sign a “Notification of Rights” form, explaining “…I am going to ask you to sign it. You’re not admitting to anything. I am just telling you it just says that I read you this [the warnings], okay?” The form included a preprinted statement, “I understand my rights,” but did not indicate that by signing the form it would waive rights. Barker was evaluated as part of the juvenile court’s determination about transfer, and he was found to have a low IQ, below-gradelevel academic abilities, and to have an individualized education plan. Barker was transferred to adult court, where he moved to have his statements suppressed, arguing that he had not knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights. The trial court dismissed his motion, not making a finding on his waiver, but finding that he had voluntarily made statements. Ohio law (R.C. 2933.81(B)) stated that recorded interrogations were presumed voluntary. Barker was convicted and he appealed. The First District Court of Appeals affirmed his convictions, finding support in the record for the trial court’s decision about his rights waiver despite the absence of an express finding on the point. Barker appealed.

Holding: The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed and remanded. The Court distinguished two issues: the rights waiver issue, which was rooted in the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, and voluntary statements issue, which was rooted in the Fourteenth Amendment due process right. Addressing the rights waiver, the Court found that R.C. 2933.81(B) did not apply to waiver of Fifth Amendment rights, and noted that state and federal case law make clear that rights waivers cannot be presumed and state legislatures cannot supersede federal constitutional law. Ultimately, the Court held that the state retains the burden of proving that Barker waived his rights. As to the second issue, the Court noted that juveniles require greater protections than adults. The Court noted that voluntariness of statements is assessed via the totality of circumstances test, and that R.C. 2933.81(B) effectively blocked consideration of the totality of circumstances, at least in juvenile cases, by its presumption of voluntariness. Ultimately, it held the law to be unconstitutional as applied to juveniles.

Found in DMHL Volume 35, Issue 2

Provider Liability; Claims by Third Parties

Holloway v. State, 875 N.W.2d 435 (Neb. 2016)

Nebraska Supreme Court rules that state mental health service providers not liable for injuries to victim of a shooting by a mentally ill person released from prison upon completion of his sentence. [Editor’s Note: An 8 th Circuit case related to the same incident, Glasgow v. State, is covered in this issue of DMHL.]

Background: On July 20, 2013, Nikko Jenkins was released from prison after serving 10.5 years of his 21-year sentence. While in prison, Jenkins engaged in numerous violent activities and repeatedly exhibited signs of a serious mental health problem. On August 24, Jenkins shot Shamecka Holloway as she walked in her front yard in Omaha, Nebraska. As a result of the shooting, Holloway suffered permanent damage and incurred medical bills; she sued the State, the state department of corrections, and the company that provided mental health services for the department and several of its providers. In her complaint, Holloway stated that the State’s responsibilities with respect to the inmates included assessing and evaluating inmates in order to determine the need for mental health commitment, and providing adequate advance notice to members of the public regarding the release of a prisoner who threatened serious bodily harm to others. The complaint further alleged that Jenkins had told Baker and staff evaluators that he would hurt others upon his release. Thus, Holloway claimed that the State knew or should have known of the foreseeability of harm to her once Jenkins was released, and mental health care providers owed a duty to the citizens of Nebraska to correctly evaluate and treat all inmates. The district court dismissed all claims brought by Holloway. Holloway appealed.

Holding: On appeal, the Supreme Court of Nebraska held that the district court did not err in dismissing Holloway’s complaint. The court found that the State and its employees were entitled to immunity from suit because whether to seek commitment falls under the “discretionary function” exception to the State Tort Claims Act. Further, the Supreme Court of Nebraska affirmed the district court’s ruling that Holloway failed to plead sufficient facts to show that the mental health care provider was liable.

Notable Points:

A state actor’s performance or nonperformance of a discretionary function cannot be the basis of liability: The State Tort Claims Act (“Act”) contains a discretionary function exception to the waiver of sovereign immunity for certain claims. A two-step analysis is used to determine whether the discretionary function exception applies. The court must first consider whether the action is a matter of choice for the acting employee. Under the applicable statute of the Nebraska Mental Health Commitment Act, whether to communicate a belief that another person is believed to be mentally ill and dangerous is a matter of choice. Thus, the first step of the analysis was satisfied. The second step requires that when a statute involves an element of judgment, the judgment must be of the particular kind that the discretionary function exception was designed to protect. The court concluded that the decision as to whether to report to the county that another person is thought to be mentally ill is a policy decision that the legislature intended to shield from liability.

Mental health treatment providers are only liable for failing to warn of a patient's threatened behavior under certain exceptional circumstances: A psychologist or mental health practitioner is not liable for failing to warn of a patient’s threatened violent behavior unless the patient has threatened violence toward a reasonably identifiable victim. Here, Jenkins did not specify a particular person but rather threatened the “citizens of Nebraska.” Another source of liability could be founded on a custodial relationship, but the court concluded a custodial relationship did not exist because CCS was only contracted to provide medical services for inmates, not to exercise any kind of custody over inmates.

Found in DMHL Volume 35, Issue 2

Firearms Possession by Persons with Mental Illness; Negligent Entrustment

Delana v. CED Sales, Inc., No. SC95013, 486 S.W.3d 316 (Mo. 2016) (en banc)

Missouri Supreme Court rules that a claim of negligent entrustment can be brought against a seller who sold a firearm to an individual after the seller had been specifically informed that the purchaser was mentally ill and had attempted suicide recently and was likely to do harm to self or others if given possession of a firearm, where the purchaser did subsequently use the firearm to kill another person.

Background: On June 25, 2012, Colby Weathers’ mother called the store manager of Odessa Gun & Pawn and asked him to refrain from selling a gun to her daughter who was severely mentally ill, informing him that Ms. Weathers had purchased a gun at the pawnshop the previous month and attempted to commit suicide. Two days later, the store manager sold a gun to Weathers and within two hours, Weathers had shot and killed her father. The State charged Weathers with murder but accepted her plea of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect and ordered her committed to the Missouri Department of Mental Health. Weathers’ mother filed a wrongful death action alleging that the pawnshop was liable under theories of negligence.

The circuit court entered summary judgment in favor of Respondents, finding that Weathers’ mother’s negligence claims were preempted by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which protects the sellers of firearms against negligence claims. The court also determined that although the PLCAA provides an exception to this protection in cases of negligent entrustment, Missouri law does not recognize a cause of action for negligent entrustment against sellers.

Holding: On appeal, the Supreme Court of Missouri held that the district court erred in determining that Weathers’ mother was precluded from proceeding with her negligent entrustment claim. The court found that, because Congress had expressly and unambiguously exercised its constitutionally delegated authority to preempt state law negligence actions against sellers of firearms, the PLCAA clearly preempted state law on point; thus, the PLCAA’s exception for negligent entrustment actions applied. What is more, the Court found that Missouri law does recognize a cause of action for negligent entrustment. The court concluded that negligent entrustment occurs when the defendant "supplies" a chattel (i.e., item of personal property) to another with actual or constructive knowledge that, "because of youth, inexperience or otherwise," the recipient will likely use the chattel in a manner that will result in an unreasonable risk of physical harm. Because Weathers’ mother presented sufficient evidence, the circuit court erred in entering summary judgment in favor of the pawnshop.

Found in DMHL Volume 35, Issue 2

Provider Liability

Binkley v. Allina Health Sys., 877 N.W.2d 547 (Minn. 2016)

In a case involving a minor with history of suicidal behavior, hospital’s affirmative defense of statutory immunity applied to the decision to deny admission to an inpatient mental health unit, but not to decisions regarding what care to provide the patient after leaving the hospital. 

Background: Binkley sued Allina Health System (“Allina”) for negligence in failing to properly examine, evaluate, and provide services to her son, Lloyd, who committed suicide after being denied admission into an inpatient mental health unit. In 2009, Lloyd began to experience suicidal thoughts and ideation, which resulted in his participation in the “United Partial Program” (“partial program”), an outpatient mental health treatment program. About nine months after completing the program, Lloyd again experienced suicidal ideation and self-harm behavior. He told his mother that he wanted to go to United in order to get help and stop his pattern of self-harm. Binkley and Lloyd went to the United Health emergency room and repeatedly requested that Lloyd, who consented, be admitted to United's inpatient mental health unit. Lloyd was examined by United staff, but was informed that he would not be admitted to the inpatient unit and, further, he was not “a good candidate” for the outpatient program because of a previous failure to follow through with that program. Lloyd returned home with his mother and committed suicide less than 24 hours later. Respondents asserted an affirmative defense of statutory immunity and, in the alternative, claimed that Binkley's expert affidavit failed to satisfy the statutory requirements under Minnesota law. The district court denied the motion for summary judgment.

Holding: On appeal, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that Respondents' good-faith decision to deny Lloyd admission to the inpatient mental health unit was entitled to immunity. However, the court also held that decisions regarding what care to provide to Lloyd after he left the hospital were not entitled to immunity.

Notable Points:

The immunity provision of the Minnesota Commitment and Treatment Act (“CTA”) applies to both voluntary and involuntary commitments: The CTA creates a state policy in favor of voluntary treatment. The voluntary treatment section of the CTA, which applied to Lloyd's circumstances, prohibits the arbitrary denial of admission and requires that treatment facilities use “clinical admission criteria consistent with the current applicable inpatient admission standards established by the American Psychiatric Association or the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry” when “making decisions regarding admissions.”

Found in DMHL Volume 35, Issue 2

Intellectual Disability and Death Penalty

White v. Commonwealth, No. 2013-SC-000791-MR, 2016 WL 2604759 (Ky. May 5, 2016)

Kentucky Supreme Court overturns trial court ruling that defendant waived claim that he was not subject to the death penalty due to intellectual disability after defendant had refused to accept evaluation by a state psychiatric center to determine intellectual disability and insisted on state payment for evaluation by a private psychologist.

Background: In 1980, White was convicted by a Powell Circuit Court jury of three counts of capital murder, three counts of first-degree robbery, and one count of burglary. He was sentenced to death for each of the three murders. Less than a month after he was sentenced, White was subjected to a psychological evaluation, which determined that he had an overall IQ score of 81. In 2004, White filed a motion in the Powell Circuit Court, based on Atkins v. Virginia, to set aside his death sentences on the grounds that he was intellectually disabled. White argued that the Kentucky Correctional Psychiatric Center (KCPC) was incapable of conducting the necessary evaluations to determine his competence for the death penalty, and that the state should instead pay for an independent evaluation by an intellectual disability expert selected by White. Over the next several years, several orders for evaluation by the trial court and subsequent writs of prohibition by both White and the Commonwealth were entered. The trial court ultimately rejected White’s demand for an independent evaluation and ordered an evaluation by the KCPC. White refused to cooperate with the evaluation by the KCPC, which the trial court ruled was a waiver of his intellectual disability claim.

Holding: On appeal, the Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that White is not entitled to public funds for an expert of his choosing. The court reversed the trial court’s judgment that White waived his right to an intellectual disability claim by refusing an evaluation by the KCPC.

Notable Points:

An evaluation by the KCPC does not violate a defendant’s Fifth Amendment right to remain silent during post-conviction proceedings: The court ruled that White’s Fifth Amendment rights would be minimally affected, if at all, by an evaluation by the KCPC. White was already tried and convicted of three murders; therefore, any inquiry by the mental health professionals into these crimes would not implicate the right.

Kentucky law barring executions of only those individuals with an IQ score of 70 or less was invalidated by the U.S. Supreme Court Decision in Hall v. Florida, 134 S. Ct. 1986 (2014): The Kentucky Supreme Court noted that the Hall decision “effectively invalidated our arbitrary intelligence score standard for evaluating” intellectual disability.

Found in DMHL Volume 35, Issue 2

Juvenile Offenders; Life Sentence without Parole

State v. Sweet, 879 N.W.2d 811 (Iowa 2016)

Iowa Supreme Court reverses and remands sentencing of a juvenile offender to life without parole in a doublemurder case, on the grounds that such a sentence violates the Iowa Constitution. (Vigorous dissent notes that the Court’s “categorical bar” of life without parole for juveniles goes beyond the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Miller v. Alabama.)

Background: Isaiah Sweet was 17 years old when he shot and killed his grandparents, who had raised him since the age of 4. He pled not guilty to two counts of first-degree murder, but after the State concluded its case, he pled guilty as part of a plea agreement with the State. The court entered an order for a presentence investigation report, per recent Iowa precedent concerning the sentencing of juveniles convicted of murder. After review of the report and expert testimony from a clinical psychologist, which detailed hardships in his life and the inherent difficulties of assessing risk in adolescents, Sweet was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. Sweet appealed the sentence.

Holding: On appeal, The Iowa Supreme Court ruled that a sentence of life without the possibility of parole (LWOP) for a juvenile offender violates article I, section 17 of the Iowa Constitution. The Court noted that Sweet did not expressly cite the federal Eighth Amendment, so it proceeded with its analysis under the Iowa Constitution. The Court reviewed the history of federal Eighth Amendment case law up through the recent cases concerning juveniles (e.g., Miller v. Alabama), then reviewed Iowa case law. It noted that Iowa has extended the reasoning of recent federal cases to provide even greater protection to juveniles (e.g., requiring individualized hearings in cases involving long prison sentences short of life in prison without the possibility of parole). The Court ultimately held that a categorical bar on life without parole sentences was required under the Iowa Constitution.

Notable Points:

Categorical bar to LWOP replaces case-by-case analysis: The Iowa Supreme Court first assessed whether a consensus existed in favor of a categorical approach. The Court noted that nine states have abolished LWOP sentences for juveniles, and that another 13 have functionally barred the practice. It also noted, however, that several state supreme courts have concluded that a categorical bar is not necessary. Concluding that a consensus was not present, the Court then exercised its “independent judgment to determine whether to follow a categorical approach,” ultimately concluding “that sentencing courts should not be required to make speculative up-front decisions on juvenile offenders’ prospects for rehabilitation because they lack adequate predictive information supporting such a decision.” Instead, “[t]he parole board will be better able to discern whether the offender is irreparably corrupt after time has passed, after opportunities for maturation and rehabilitation have been provided, and after a record of success or failure in the rehabilitative process is available.”

Found in DMHL Volume 35, Issue 2

Provider Liability; Claims by Third Parties

Mitchell v. State, 369 P.3d 299 (Idaho 2016)

Idaho Supreme Court rules that the victim of a shooting by a person with mental illness who had been discharged from treatment services by the state’s mental health services program may pursue a claim against the state that his injury was the result of a negligent termination of services.

Background: Gerald Simpson had been receiving mental health services from the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare’s (IDHW) Adult Mental Health program until he was released on June 23, 2010. On September 27, 2010, Simpson shot Ryan Mitchell in the back outside of a coffee shop. Approximately ten days after the shooting, psychologist Daniel Traughber, Ph.D., prepared a memorandum on behalf of the IDHW explaining the processes and procedures that were used to terminate mental health services, subsequent to budget cuts, in a way that “reduced the risk of harm to patients and/or the community.” In August 2012, the district court dismissed the criminal charges against Simpson due to Simpson’s lack of competency to stand trial. Shortly thereafter, Mitchell filed this suit alleging that the State violated Mitchell’s constitutional and victims’ rights and was negligent when it discontinued Simpson’s mental health services. The district court issued an order granting summary judgment to the State on all claims.

Holding: On appeal, the Supreme Court of Idaho held that Mitchell’s victims’ rights claim was properly dismissed, but that the claim for negligence had been dismissed in error. The court determined that there was insufficient admissible evidence for the district court to make a determination as to whether the decision to cut Simpson from IDHW's mental health services was operational or discretionary. Thus, the district court erred in holding that the State’s decision to close Simpson’s file was discretionary and therefore erred in granting summary judgment to the State on Mitchell’s negligence claim.

Notable Points:

Mitchell’s negligence claim turns on whether IDHW's decision to release Simpson from its Adult Mental Health program was a discretionary function or an operational function: If the State’s decision to discontinue Simpson’s mental health services was a discretionary function then it would entitle the State to immunity. Here, there were insufficient facts for the trial court to determine whether IDHW's decision to cut Simpson from its health services was operational or discretionary. The evidence did not indicate who made the decision to close Simpson's file or how that decision was made.

Found in DMHL Volume 35, Issue 2

Sex Offender; Probation Violation

Zebbs v. Com., 785 S.E.2d 493 (Va. Ct. App. 2016)

A defendant whose probation requirements necessitate a sex offender program may be held in violation of his probation when he refuses to abide by a central requirement of the program, namely admitting to the misconduct for which he was convicted. Defendant who entered an Alford plea is treated as if he entered a guilty plea after conviction; therefore, an admission of guilt to the crimes he was charged with does not invoke Fifth Amendment protection.

Background: Defendant Zebbs entered an Alford plea, pleading guilty to forcible sodomy, among two other charges. An Alford plea is treated the same as a guilty plea after the defendant is tried and convicted. Zebbs was required to successfully complete a sex offender treatment program to satisfy the terms of his probation, among other terms. Admitting to the offense for which the offender received probation is a mandatory part of the program. Zebbs refused to admit to his misconduct, arguing that it was a violation of his Fifth Amendment right to require him to verbally incriminate himself and punish him for not doing so. The circuit court found Zebbs in violation of his probation, and he subsequently appealed.

Holding: A valid Fifth Amendment claim must include an admission that may carry the risk of incrimination and a substantial penalty for not giving the incriminating testimony. There was no risk of incrimination here because the misconduct Zebbs was required to admit to had already been litigated and thus an admission after the fact would not give rise to incrimination. Double jeopardy would bar the prosecution of Zebbs for admitting to misconduct for which he had been tried and convicted. Therefore, the Fifth Amendment did not protect Zebbs from cooperating with the sex offender treatment terms and the circuit court did not err in finding that he violated his probation by not completing the treatment.

Found in DMHL Volume 35, Issue 2

Sexual Abuse and Psychological Injury; Statute of Limitations

Haynes v. Haggerty, 784 S.E.2d 293 (Va. 2016)

For cases where the childhood sexual abuse occurred before October 1977, the two-year statute of limitations for civil action seeking damages starts when the victim reaches majority. As of October 1977, the two-year statute of limitations starts to run either after the victim has attained majority or after the victim has been advised by a licensed physician or psychologist that the person has an injury caused by the prior abuse.

Background: Nancy Haynes alleged that Sean Haggerty had a sexual relationship with her between the years of 1971 and 1975, while she was a minor. Haynes reached majority in March of 1975. In October 1977, Virginia Code Section 8.01-249(6) was passed, which dictated that causes of action based on childhood sexual abuse accrue when the fact of the injury and its causal connection to the abuse is first communicated to the victim by a licensed physician, psychologist, or clinical psychologist. This statute specifically noted that victimizations that occurred before the passing of this statute would be dictated by the former statute, which stated that causes of action based on childhood sexual abuse accrue upon reaching majority. In May of 2012, Haynes was diagnosed by her therapist with Dysthymic Disorder, which the therapist said was a result of Haggerty sexually abusing her when she was a minor. Haynes brought suit against Haggerty seeking damages for sexual assault and battery.

The circuit court held that the statute of limitations applicable in 1975 had expired before the passage of 8.01-249(6) and thus its application to this case would deprive Haggerty of due process and property right to a statute of limitations defense. Also, the court concluded that Haynes’ extremely protracted failure to act though being fully aware of Haggerty’s sexual misconduct would egregiously undermine Haggerty’s constitutional rights to due process. Haynes appealed the decision.

Holding: The Supreme Court held that Haynes’ causes of actions were dictated by the preceding statute, which stated that the statute of limitations governing the claims would be tolled until the alleged victim reached majority. 8.01-249(6) therefore did not apply to Haynes’ claim and the circuit court did not err in granting Haggerty’s plea in bar.

Found in DMHL Volume 35, Issue 2

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel in Death Penalty Case

Daniel v. Commr., Alabama Dept. of Corrections, 822 F.3d 1248 (11th Cir. 2016)

Failure of defense counsel to adequately investigate and present at penalty hearing the deprivations and traumas of the defendant’s past as mitigation evidence may constitute ineffective assistance of counsel and entitle defendant to a new penalty phase hearing.

Background: Renard Daniel was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. He filed for habeas corpus alleging ineffective assistance of counsel at the guilt and penalty phases of his trial. Daniel claimed that counsel was deficient in investigating and presenting mitigating evidence and rebutting aggravating evidence. Daniel’s childhood included witnessing his mother kill his father when he was three years old, being sexually abused by his stepfather for several years beginning when he was nine years old, and a history of borderline intellectual functioning. Daniel’s petition claimed that the sentencing judge and jury heard none of these details, and that the failure to present this evidence also prejudiced the outcome of the penalty phase of his trial. The District court, for procedural and substantive reasons, denied his claim. Daniel appealed to the Circuit court.

Holding: The Second Circuit looked to the American Bar Association (ABA) guidelines to evaluate the standard for investigations into mitigating evidence. The ABA suggests that investigations “should comprise efforts to discover all reasonably available mitigating evidence and evidence to rebut any aggravating evidence that may be introduced by the prosecutor.” The court found that Daniel’s trial counsel made no meaningful contact with Daniel’s mother, siblings, or mental health professionals and actually ignored the family’s request to inform him of Daniel’s extensive history of intellectual disabilities and being sexually abused. The court found that any reasonable and competent attorney would have made a deeper investigation of Daniel’s history, and thus there was enough evidence to bring an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The court noted that evidence of mental problems, childhood abuse, and non-violent characterizations of past crimes is inherently mitigating and could change the jury’s mindset. It also found that the district court’s conclusion that Daniel failed to plead how he was prejudiced was an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent and federal law.

Found in DMHL Volume 35, Issue 2

Treatment over Objection to Restore Defendant to Competency to Stand Trial

U.S. v. Onuoha, 820 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2016)

Ninth Circuit vacates and remands district court order authorizing treatment, finding government failed to show proposed treatment is in the defendant’s best medical interests.

Background: From 2004 to 2012, Onuoha served in the National Guard. From 2006 to September 2013, when he resigned, Onuoha worked as a Transportation Security Administration (TSA) screener at LAX Airport. A few hours after resigning, Onuoha returned to TSA headquarters at LAX and left a note for a former supervisor who had been involved in a suspension of Onuoha earlier that summer. The government alleged that Onuoha then made calls to a TSA checkpoint and to the LAX police department alluding to sending a message to America and the world and telling them to evacuate LAX. TSA headquarters was evacuated. Law enforcement officials went to Onuoha’s apartment and discovered that all of his belongings had been removed and all that remained was a large note reading “09/11/2013 THERE WILL BE FIRE! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR!” Later that day, Onuoha called LAX police and told them that he was at a church in Riverside, CA. He told police that he did not intend to make a bomb threat or injure anyone and that he only wanted to deliver a message. Onuoha waited at the church until he was apprehended.

Onuoha’s defense counsel submitted a report that Onuoha suffered from paranoid schizophrenia and planned to raise a diminished-capacity defense. The government requested a competency evaluation, and Onuoha was found not competent to stand trial. The government then filed a motion for an order to involuntarily medicate Onuoha with the goal of restoring him to competency, which the district court granted.

Holding: On appeal, the Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded, holding that the district court erred in finding that the proposed treatment was in Onuoha’s best medical interest under the Sell test. The court of appeals held that the district court was correct in finding that there is an important government interest at stake in prosecuting Onuoha, but the district court clearly erred in finding that the proposed course of treatment was in Onuoha’s best medical interests.

Notable Points:

The seriousness of the offense outweighed the “special circumstance” of time detained: The first Sell factor requires the government to prove that important governmental interests are at stake in prosecuting Onuoha. In Sell, the court recognized that there may be some special circumstances that diminish the government’s interest in prosecution, including the amount of time the defendant had already been confined. In this case, the court considered that Onuoha had already spent time in custody since September 2013, amounting to confinement beyond the minimum possible sentence. Nevertheless, the court found it important that a conviction and resulting sentence for the serious crime at issue is significant in terms of general deterrence, not just incapacitation of a specific individual. Here, the court concluded that the government’s valid interest in prosecuting Onuoha outweighed any special circumstances of Onuoha’s detention.

The government did not meet its burden for proving the fourth Sell factor by clear and convincing evidence: The fourth Sell factor requires the government to prove that administration of the drugs is medically appropriate and therefore in Onuoha’s best medical interest in light of his medical condition. The Ninth Circuit held that after hearing the testimony of a medical expert experienced in administering involuntary medication, the district court could not credit the expert’s testimony without exploring contradictory evidence in the record. In this case, contradictory evidence included that the recommended treatment increased the risk of side effects, the dosage proposed was higher than is generally recommended, and the use of the proposed drug does not conform to the community standard of care. Because involuntary medication orders are disfavored in light of the significant liberty interests at stake, and because the record demonstrated that the proposed treatment included dosages higher than generally recommended, the medication was not in Onuoha’s best medical interest.

Found in DMHL Volume 35, Issue 2

Competency Evaluations

Trueblood v. Washington State Dept. of Soc. and Health Services, 822 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2016)

The Ninth Circuit finds that 7-day deadline for competence to stand trial evaluations is not constitutionally required and, therefore, the lower court’s permanent injunction required modification.

Background: In Washington, if a judge, defense attorney, or prosecutor raises a doubt about a criminal defendant’s competency, the court must order an evaluation. If the defendant is found incompetent, the court may order restorative services, dismiss the case, or refer the defendant for civil commitment. Washington law, as of July 2015, set a target deadline of 7 days or less for the state to complete a competency evaluation, with the option to extend the deadline to 14 days for clinical reasons and several defenses for failing to meet the deadline. Cassie Trueblood brought a Section 1983 claim on behalf of a plaintiff who was found legally incompetent to stand trial and detained in solitary confinement awaiting transfer to a hospital and the class of past and future detainees. Trueblood claimed that the current waiting times in jail for competency evaluations were so long that they were “beyond any constitutional boundary.” The district court granted Trueblood’s motion for summary judgment, stating that any waiting period beyond 7 days is suspect of infringing the detainee’s liberty interest in freedom from incarceration. The court also ordered a permanent injunction because it found that the state “‘had a long history of failing to adequately protect the constitutional rights’ of the class and had ‘demonstrated a consistent pattern of intentionally disregarding court orders.’” The state appealed only the part of the injunction that required a competency evaluation within 7 days, or longer upon a court-ordered extension for “clinical good cause.”

Holding: According to previous Supreme Court decisions, the length of the commitment must have a reasonable relation to the purpose of the commitment and the interests of the detainee and state must be weighed in light of constitutionally acceptable timeframes. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to the circumstances of pretrial detainees and their confinement. When the constitutionality of competency evaluation deadlines is challenged, a court must weigh the interests of the detainees and the state and benchmark those interests against what is constitutionally reasonable, not simply decide whether the deadlines are reasonable and achievable. The Ninth Circuit found that the lower court made no such analysis and erroneously based its findings on what was reasonable and achievable. The Ninth Circuit held that, for this reason, the lower court erred in upholding the 7 day deadline and, thus, that part of the permanent injunction was vacated and the case was remanded to the lower court. The Ninth Circuit charged the lower court with modifying the permanent injunction while “taking into account the balancing of interests related specifically to initial competency evaluations.”

Found in DMHL Volume 35, Issue 2

Liability of Correctional and Mental Health Officials

Glasgow v. Nebraska, 819 F.3d 436 (8th Cir. 2016)

Correctional and mental health officials do not owe a duty to third parties for injuries inflicted by inmates who are returned to the community following assessment by those officials. 

Background: Nikko Jenkins was a mentally ill inmate who was released from prison after 10.5 years of his sentence because the state changed Jenkins’ recommendation from inpatient to outpatient treatment, which accelerated his release. Upon his release, Jenkins killed 4 people in Omaha, one of them Curtis Bradford. Bradford’s mother, Velita Glasgow, filed suit against the state of Nebraska, among other defendants, for violation of Bradford’s substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment (§1983) and a state law negligence claim, arguing that the state acted with deliberate indifference in accelerating a dangerous prisoner’s release and violated Bradford’s right to life. Additionally, she argued that the state had a duty to protect Bradford from their prisoners and the state abandoned that duty when they knowingly released a mentally-ill prisoner who allegedly threatened to kill someone if he was released. The district court dismissed Glasgow’s claim, stating that the complaint was “devoid of any plausible allegation against [the] defendants.” Glasgow appealed.

Holding: The Eighth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of all claims. An official may be sued if they violated a statutory or constitutional right that was “clearly established” at the time of the conduct. The Eighth Circuit held that “there is no general substantive due process right to be protected against the release of criminals from confinement.” Furthermore, because there was no evidence that the state’s conduct created a significant risk to a precisely defined group of people and that, if that group existed, Bradford was a part of that group, the state was not required by the Due Process clause to protect Bradford’s life from private actors. The court quickly did away with the negligence claim by holding that the plaintiff did not provide any legal authority to explain that the state had a legal duty to Bradford.

Found in DMHL Volume 35, Issue 2