Paine v. Cason, 678 F.3d 500

Eilman, a mentally ill woman, was arrested at Midway Airport and later released from custody in a hazardous neighborhood after a manic episode.
The district court held some defendants liable for failure to provide medical care while in custody; others were immune.
Paine asserted three theories: (1) right to medical care during custody; (2) right to custody extension for treatment; (3) police-created risk by releasing her into danger.
The court rejected the second theory as a clearly established right to extended custody for medical care; the first theory covers in-custody care, not release duration.
The Seventh Circuit affirmed on some defendants, reversed on others, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion on the remaining two defendants.
This is a qualified-immunity appeal; the court clarifies when police may be liable for the consequences of releasing a detainee into danger while unable to protect herself.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether police must provide medical care to detainees with serious conditions.	Paine asserts Eilman needed care and lack of care caused harms.	Cason and others argue causation and that the right to care while in custody is not clearly established.	Right to medical care in custody clearly established; causation unresolved on interlocutory review.
Whether there is a clearly established right to detain a detainee longer for medical treatment.	Paine seeks extended custody for treatment.	No clearly established right to extended custody for medical care.	No clearly established right to extend custody for medical care.
Whether the police violated due process by releasing Eilman into a dangerous area without mitigation.	Release increased risk without warnings or help.	No protection obligation to prevent all private violence or to keep her detained.	It is clearly established that state actors cannot gratuitously increase risk by releasing a detainee into danger.

DeShaney v. Winnebago Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (1989) (no general duty to protect from private violence; due process limits government action that increases risk)
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (duty to provide medical care for serious conditions in custody)
Ortiz v. Chicago, 656 F.3d 523 (7th Cir. 2011) (clarifies medical-care duty and application to custody situations)
Stevens v. Green Bay, 105 F.3d 1169 (7th Cir. 1997) (limits on detaining for medical care; negative liberty principle)
Portis v. Chicago, 613 F.3d 702 (7th Cir. 2010) (balances release timing with reasonable constitutional standards)