Cathy Neely, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross v. Stephen Feinstein, Defendants-Appellants-Cross

Good Law
50 F.3d 1502·95 Daily Journal DAR 4167·1995 WL 142411·1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 6615·95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2389
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 3, 199593-35910, 93-36174California4,070 words

Opinion

Opinion

Pregerson, J.

Defendant Stephen Feinstein, a former superintendent of the Eastern Oregon Psychiatric Center (“EOPC”), appeals the district court’s judgment denying him qualified immunity in Plaintiff Cathy Neely’s action against him for failing to protect her from sexual abuse while she was a patient at EOPC. Neely also named as defendants John Brown, Jane Beshore, Linda Murgo, and Cecilia Hosley, other employees of EOPC. The district court granted qualified immunity to these defendants. Neely cross-appeals these grants of qualified immunity.

Pursuant to the collateral order doctrine, we have jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals from orders denying summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530 , 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2817-18 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985); Act Up!/Portland v. Bagley, 988 F.2d 868, 870 (9th Cir.1993). We affirm the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to Feinstein, and the court’s grant of qualified immunity to Murgo, Hosley, and Brown.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Cathy Neely, a former patient at the Eastern Oregon Psychiatric Center (“EOPC”), alleges that during the course of her treatment at EOPC, from May 4,1990 to June 8, 1990, Jess…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.