John Montin v. Y. Moore, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 944

Background

John Maxwell Montin was committed to Nebraska’s Lincoln Regional Center (LRC) in 1993 after a jury found him not responsible by reason of insanity; he was unconditionally released in 2013.
Montin sued LRC employees in federal court (July 2014), alleging (1) state-law medical malpractice, (2) § 1983 claims for unnecessary confinement, and (3) § 1983 retaliation for seeking court review.
Defendants were state employees who performed forensic evaluations, testing, treatment planning, and annual court reports while Montin was committed.
The district court dismissed the state-law malpractice claim as barred by sovereign immunity and Nebraska’s State Tort Claims Act (STCA) procedures, and dismissed the § 1983 unnecessary confinement claim on qualified immunity grounds; the retaliation claim was also dismissed.
On appeal, the Eighth Circuit reviewed (a) dismissal of the state-law claim de novo and (b) judgment on the pleadings dismissing the federal claims de novo.
The court treated the malpractice allegations as acts within the scope of state employment (therefore official-capacity claims subject to sovereign immunity and STCA requirements) and analyzed whether defendants violated clearly established constitutional rights for qualified immunity purposes.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Montin's state-law malpractice claim may proceed in federal court despite STCA	Montin alleged claims were against defendants individually, not the State, so sovereign immunity does not bar federal suit	Defendants are state employees and the alleged torts occurred within scope of employment; STCA requires state torts be filed in Nebraska district court	Dismissed without prejudice: claims treated as official-capacity/state claims and improperly filed in federal court under the STCA
Whether defendants violated Montin's due-process right to be free from unnecessary confinement	Montin alleged unreliable evaluations and inadequate treatment caused continued, unnecessary confinement	Defendants argue alleged conduct is at most negligent and they are protected by qualified immunity	Dismissed: allegations amount to negligence/gross negligence, not a clearly established constitutional violation; qualified immunity applies
Whether defendants acted with the requisite state-of-mind (malicious intent or deliberate indifference) to overcome qualified immunity	Montin asserted defendants knew their actions would cause unlawful confinement	Defendants argue they held a subjective (albeit allegedly erroneous) belief Montin was dangerous and mentally ill, negating malicious intent	Held for defendants: pleaded facts show a subjective belief of dangerousness, rebutting a malicious-intent theory
Whether Montin may pursue a retaliation § 1983 claim	Montin alleged retaliation in his complaint	Defendants note the claim was not argued on appeal	Waived on appeal: Montin failed to raise argument in opening brief, so claim affirmed dismissed

Key Cases Cited

Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (sovereign immunity bars suits against states in state courts without waiver)
Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (limits on Congressional abrogation of state sovereign immunity)
Raygor v. Regents of Univ. of Minn., 534 U.S. 533 (Eleventh Amendment bars some suits in federal court despite subject-matter jurisdiction)
O'Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563 (due process prohibits confinement of nondangerous individuals who can survive safely in freedom)
Jones v. United States, 463 U.S. 354 (commitment standards and dangerousness inquiry)
Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21 (official-capacity/individual-capacity distinction for § 1983 suits)
Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (states are not "persons" under § 1983)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (complaint must contain factual matter to state plausible claim)
Jackson v. Buckman, 756 F.3d 1060 (negligent or grossly negligent conduct does not alone implicate Due Process Clause)