Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Doe v. Harrison 254 F. Supp.2d 338

Doe v. Harrison 254 F. Supp.2d 338

Ratings: (0)|Views: 318|Likes:
Published by Thalia Sanders
another mentally ill case filed under the color of law

MENTALLY ILL CASES In order to state a claim pursuant to § 1983, plaintiff must allege (1) that the challenged
conduct was attributable at least in part to a person acting under color of law

Patient brought civil rights action against private
hospital and medical personnel who hospitalized
her against her will for 12 days. On defendants' motion
to dismiss, the District Court, Stein, J., held
that patient's civil commitment was not state action
under § 1983.
Motion granted.

In order to state a claim pursuant to § 1983,
plaintiff must allege (1) that the challenged conduct
was attributable at least in part to a person acting
under color of state law, and (2) that such conduct
deprived the plaintiff of a right, privilege, or immunity
secured by the Constitution or laws of the
United States. 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983.
another mentally ill case filed under the color of law

MENTALLY ILL CASES In order to state a claim pursuant to § 1983, plaintiff must allege (1) that the challenged
conduct was attributable at least in part to a person acting under color of law

Patient brought civil rights action against private
hospital and medical personnel who hospitalized
her against her will for 12 days. On defendants' motion
to dismiss, the District Court, Stein, J., held
that patient's civil commitment was not state action
under § 1983.
Motion granted.

In order to state a claim pursuant to § 1983,
plaintiff must allege (1) that the challenged conduct
was attributable at least in part to a person acting
under color of state law, and (2) that such conduct
deprived the plaintiff of a right, privilege, or immunity
secured by the Constitution or laws of the
United States. 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983.

More info:

Published by: Thalia Sanders on Jun 24, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

10/25/2012

pdf

text

original

 
Westlaw Delivery Summary Report for PATRON ACCESS,-
Date/Time of Request: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 16:16 EasternClient Identifier: PATRON ACCESSDatabase: FSFINDCitation Text: 254 F.Supp.2d 338Lines: 416Documents: 1Images: 0
MENTALLY ILL CASES In order to state a claim pursuant to § 1983, plaintiff must allege (1) that the challengedconduct was attributable at least in part to a person acting under colo
The material accompanying this summary is subject to copyright. Usage is governed by contract with Thomson Reuters,West and their affiliates.
 
United States District Court,S.D. New York.Jane DOE, Plaintiffs,v.Joan HARRISON, M.D., personally, AlexanderDeutch, M.D., personally, Rose Yu-Chin, M.D.,personally, Ellen B. Tabor, M.D., personally,Barara Lubrano, M.D., personally, Aaron Bogad,personally, Norberto Torres, personally, CabriniMedical Center, and Arthur Weiss, M.D., Defend-ants.
No. 01 Civ. 12741(SHS).
March 24, 2003.Patient brought civil rights action against privatehospital and medical personnel who hospitalizedher against her will for 12 days. On defendants' mo-tion to dismiss, the District Court,Stein, J., heldthat patient's civil commitment was not state actionunder § 1983.Motion granted.West Headnotes
[1]Civil Rights 78 1304
78Civil Rights78IIIFederal Remedies in General78k1304k. Nature and Elements of Civil Ac- tions.Most Cited Cases(Formerly 78k192)In order to state a claim pursuant to § 1983,plaintiff must allege (1) that the challenged conductwas attributable at least in part to a person actingunder color of state law, and (2) that such conductdeprived the plaintiff of a right, privilege, or im-munity secured by the Constitution or laws of theUnited States.42 U.S.C.A. § 1983.
[2]Constitutional Law 92 4041
92Constitutional Law92XXVIIDue Process92XXVII(G)Particular Issues and Applica- tions92XXVII(G)1In General92k4041k.Restraint,Commitment, and Detention.Most Cited Cases(Formerly 92k255(2))Involuntary confinement, also known as civil com-mitment, constitutes a significant deprivation of liberty requiring due process protection.U.S.C.A.Const.Amend. 14.
[3]Civil Rights 78 1326(9)
78Civil Rights78IIIFederal Remedies in General78k1323Colorof Law 78k1326Particular Cases and Contexts78k1326(9)k. Pursuit of Private or Ju-dicial Remedies.Most Cited Cases(Formerly 78k198(8))Civil commitment by a private physician pursuantto New York's Mental Hygiene Law does not estab-lish state action through state compulsion, as re-quired to support§ 1983claim.42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 ; N.Y.McKinney'sMental Hygiene Law § 9.27(a).
[4]Civil Rights 78 1326(4)
78Civil Rights78IIIFederal Remedies in General78k1323Colorof Law 78k1326Particular Cases and Contexts78k1326(3)Private Persons or Corpor-ations, in General78k1326(4)k. In General.Most Cited Cases(Formerly 78k198(3.1))Under the “state compulsion test,” State normallycan be held responsible for a private decision under§ 1983only when it has exercised coercive poweror provided such significant encouragement, overtor covert, that the choice must in law be deemed toPage 1254 F.Supp.2d 338
(Cite as: 254 F.Supp.2d 338)
© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
 
be that of the State.42 U.S.C.A. § 1983.
[5]Civil Rights 78 1326(9)
78Civil Rights78IIIFederal Remedies in General78k1323Colorof Law 78k1326Particular Cases and Contexts78k1326(9)k. Pursuit of Private or Ju-dicial Remedies.Most Cited Cases(Formerly 78k198(8))Civil commitment by a private physician is not a“public function” that constitutes state action under§ 1983when performed by a private actor.42 U.S.C.A. § 1983.
[6]Civil Rights 78 1326(4)
78Civil Rights78IIIFederal Remedies in General78k1323Colorof Law 78k1326Particular Cases and Contexts78k1326(3)Private Persons or Corpor-ations, in General78k1326(4)k. In General.Most Cited Cases(Formerly 78k198(3.1))Under the “public function test,” state action occursunder§ 1983when a private actor performs a func-tion that is traditionally the exclusive prerogative of the State.42 U.S.C.A. § 1983.
[7]Civil Rights 78 1326(9)
78Civil Rights78IIIFederal Remedies in General78k1323Colorof Law 78k1326Particular Cases and Contexts78k1326(9)k. Pursuit of Private or Ju-dicial Remedies.Most Cited Cases(Formerly 78k198(8))Civil commitment of patient by a private physicianat private hospital licensed by State of New York toprovide psychiatric services was not “state action”pursuant to§ 1983under the close nexus test.42 U.S.C.A. § 1983.
[8]Civil Rights 78 1326(9)
78Civil Rights78IIIFederal Remedies in General78k1323Colorof Law 78k1326Particular Cases and Contexts78k1326(9)k. Pursuit of Private or Ju-dicial Remedies.Most Cited Cases(Formerly 78k198(8))Involvement of city's emergency medical services(EMS) dispatcher prior to patient's civil commit-ment at private hospital licensed by State of NewYork to provide psychiatric services did not converther commitment into state action under§ 1983; solerole played by EMS dispatcher in events leading topatient's commitment was to contact hospital in re-sponse to patient's call, and there was no allegationthat the dispatcher's decision to contact hospital asopposed to any other hospital, public or private,was in any way connected to a diagnosis of pa-tient's mental health.42 U.S.C.A. § 1983.
*340
William M. Brooks, Huntington, NY, forPlaintiffs.Peter T. Shapiro, Jones, Hirsch, Connors & Bull,P.C.,Bruce M. Brady, Callan, Koster, Brady & Brennan, L.L.P.,Michael J. Laub, Gordon & Silber, P.C.,Bhalinder Lal Rikhye, Peltz & Walker, New York City, for Defendants.
OPINION 
STEIN, District Judge.The pseudonymous Jane Doe brings this actionagainst a private hospital and medical personnelwho hospitalized her against her will for 12 days.Plaintiff alleges this erroneous involuntary hospital-ization violated her constitutional right to due pro-cess and brings claims pursuant to42 U.S.C.§1983. Plaintiff also brings state constitutional andcommon-law claims of false imprisonment, assaultand battery and trespass. Defendants have moved todismiss this action on the grounds that Doe hasfailed to allege the state action required to sustain aPage 2254 F.Supp.2d 338
(Cite as: 254 F.Supp.2d 338)
© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->