Jensen

Jensen v. Lane County

Good Law
2000 Daily Journal DAR 9357·222 F.3d 570·2000 WL 1191041·2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7069·2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 21185
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 23, 2000No. 98-35866California4,886 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Goodwin, J.

Jerry Richard Jensen filed an action for damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for unlawful arrest and restraint against Lane County, certain officials, a hospital, and a private medical practitioner, Jeffrey M. Robbins, M.D. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Dr. Robbins, and the other defendants went to trial, where the jury found in their favor. The only issue on this appeal is whether Dr. Robbins was entitled to summary judgment.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The magistrate judge to whom the motion for summary judgment was assigned based his recommendation on two alternative grounds. First, he concluded that the doctor’s conduct in signing a commitment order did not constitute “state action.” For reasons that will be developed below, that was incorrect. In the alternative, the magistrate judge concluded that, if Dr. Robbins’ conduct was state action, Dr. Robbins was entitled to qualified immunity. The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and later denied Jensen’s motion to reconsider.

FACTUAL HISTORY

Shortly before midnight April 15, 1995, Jensen was arrested for “menacing with a firearm” after he pointed a gun out of his car window at a…

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.