Thomas v. Kaven
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 16429
| 10th Cir. | 2014Background
- Thomases are M.T.’s parents; M.T. exhibited suicidal ideation and was admitted to UNMPC for evaluation.
- Doctors diagnosed M.T. with major depressive disorder, possible schizophrenia, and related issues, recommending psychotropic treatment.
- The Thomases resisted doctors’ diagnoses and treatment recommendations, expressing concerns about side effects and seeking alternative options.
- M.T. was placed on a seven-day medical hold to prevent discharge, after which she was released before involuntary residential treatment proceedings.
- The Thomases sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of their right to direct M.T.’s medical care and right to familial association; the district court dismissed on qualified immunity grounds.
- The appeals court affirmed dismissal of the direct-care claim but reversed and remanded on the familial-association claim, finding that factual development is needed to assess state interests balance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants have absolute immunity for placing the medical hold and seeking involuntary treatment. | Thomases: actions closely tied to judicial process; should be protected | Defendants: actions are prosecutorial-like or investigative; absolute immunity may apply | Not entitled to absolute immunity for medical hold; qualified immunity analysis governs later. |
| Whether Thomases’ right to direct M.T.’s medical care was clearly established. | Thomases: right was violated by reporting to CYFD and interference with medical decisionmaking | Defendants: right not clearly established under these facts | Right to direct medical care not clearly established; district court correct to dismiss this claim at 12(b)(6). |
| Whether Thomases’ right to familial association was violated by the medical hold. | Thomases: temporary separation infringed protected relationship; intentional interference | Defendants: necessary for M.T.’s health; no clear-established standard at this stage | Ruling reversed in part; the complaint pleads a potentially cognizable deprivation of familial association; remand for fact-intensive balancing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. 2000) (parental rights in child custody rights have protective scope but not absolute)
- Imbler v. Pactman, 424 U.S. 409 (U.S. 1976) (absolute immunity for prosecutors' advocacy functions; limits for administrators)
- Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193 (U.S. 1985) (extends limited absolute immunity to certain officials closely tied to judicial process)
- Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478 (U.S. 1978) (agency officials may have absolute immunity for functions analogous to prosecutorial duties)
- Snell v. Tunnell, 920 F.2d 673 (10th Cir. 1990) (investigative social-work functions vs. prosecutorial-like functions determine immunity)
- Wyatt v. Cole, 504 U.S. 158 (U.S. 1992) (complaining witness not entitled to absolute immunity; focus on prosecutorial vs testimonial role)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (U.S. 2001) (two-step qualified-immunity analysis; objective reasonableness standard)
- Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118 (U.S. 1997) (distinguishes prosecutorial acts from testimonial ones for immunity analysis)
- Rehberg v. Paulk, 132 S. Ct. 1497 (S. Ct. 2012) (immunity considerations for witnesses/prosecutorial acts)