Nash
Nash v. Lewis
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
David Nash appeals a final judgment in the civil action he brought against city and county officials in Oregon who were responsible for Nash’s involuntary civil confinement related to his mental health. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm in part and reverse in part. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we recite them only as necessary.
I. Section 1983 Claim Against David Ei-senhaure and Related Monell Claim Against Jackson County Mental Health Services
The district court erred when, at the close of Nash’s case in chief, the court sua sponte dismissed as a matter of law Nash’s § 1983 claim against Eisenhaure. A § 1983 action lies for deprivation of liberty under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if, in detaining a claimant, the state failed to follow its statutory provisions governing detention, assuming (as we do here) that such statutory provisions provide the requisite due process protection of the claimant’s liberty interest required by the constitution. See Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 125 , 110 S.Ct. 975 , 108 L.Ed.2d 100 (1990).