Lorraine Gormley v. Latanya Wood-El (069717)
218 N.J. 72
| N.J. | 2014Background
- Gormley, a court-appointed attorney, represented involuntarily committed patients at Ancora Psychiatric Hospital, a state facility run by DHS.
- In Sept. 2005 she met a client, B.R., in Ancora’s Cedar Building day room, a crowded, unsupervised, violent environment with no security guards in day rooms.
- B.R., on Continuous Visual Observation, was brought to the day room for interview but Gormley was not informed of B.R.’s CVO status or heightened risk.
- The day room housed numerous violent patients; assaults on staff and visitors were frequent, with hundreds of staff assaults reported 2003–2005.
- Gormley was attacked by B.R., sustaining serious injuries; no staff intervened during the assault.
- The trial court allowed federal/state civil-rights claims to proceed; the Appellate Division granted qualified immunity, dismissing those claims as not clearly established.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether state-created danger gives rise to §1983 liability | Gormley asserts a Fourteenth Amendment due-process violation via state-created danger. | Defendants argue no duty to protect visitors under due process and no clearly established right. | Yes; the claim survives summary judgment and jury must decide. |
| Whether the right to be free from state-created danger was clearly established in 2005 | Right was clearly established by Kneipp, Bright, and Appellate Division precedent. | Right not clearly established; Collins distinguishes safety duties in workplace contexts. | Right was clearly established; qualified immunity does not apply. |
| Whether injunctive relief is available despite qualified immunity | Injunctive relief may proceed even if damages are barred by qualified immunity. | Qualified immunity bars only damages; injunctions may be barred or limited inconsistently. | Injunctive relief remains available; reversal on damages but remand for injunctive relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- DeShaney v. Winnebago Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (1989) (state-created-danger framework origin in due process analysis)
- Bright v. Westmoreland Cnty., 443 F.3d 276 (3d Cir. 2006) (four-factor state-created-danger test; shocks the conscience)
- Kneipp v. Tedder, 95 F.3d 1199 (3d Cir. 1996) (early state-created-danger articulation of factors)
- Collins v. City of Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115 (1992) (duty to provide safe workplace not always constitutionally mandated)
- Ye v. United States, 484 F.3d 634 (3d Cir. 2007) ( Bright test refinement for state-created-danger elements)
- L.W. v. Grubbs, 92 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 1996) (prison nurse attacked by inmate; application of doctrine)