Jensen

Jensen v. Lane County

Good Law
312 F.3d 1145·2002 WL 31760540
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 11, 2002No. 01-35566California1,487 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Goodwin, J.

This is the second appeal in Jerry Jensen’s 42 U.S.C. § 1988 action for damages against a contract psychiatrist who signed an order authorizing the detention of Jensen for mental health evaluation pursuant to Oregon Revised Statute § 426.232.

In the first appeal, we held that Dr. Robbins was a state actor and that he was not entitled to qualified immunity, contrary to the district court’s conclusions, and reversed the summary judgment in favor of Dr. Robbins. On remand, both parties again moved for summary judgment on a ground not reached in the earlier proceedings: Whether Dr. Robbins, acting pursuant to the Oregon statutory procedure in such cases, had properly exercised professional judgment in permitting Jensen’s detention to continue while the evaluation took its course. On undisputed facts, the case turned on a question of law. The district court, finding no Ninth Circuit case on the question, relied on Rodriguez v. City of New York, 72 F.3d 1051 (2d Cir.1995). We affirm the judgment.

On this appeal, Jensen has conceded that his original arrest and referral for a mental health evaluation were based upon probable cause. Cf. Maag v. Wessler, 960 F.2d 773, 775-76…

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.