Warren v. Pataki
823 F.3d 125
2d Cir.2016Background
- In 2005 Governor Pataki launched the Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) Initiative directing OMH and DOCS to assess soon-to-be-released inmates for involuntary civil commitment using MHL Article 9 procedures rather than the more protective Correction Law § 402 process. OMH psychiatrists evaluated inmates and recommended commitment without prior adversarial hearings.
- Plaintiffs Robert Warren and Charles Brooks were evaluated and civilly committed under the Initiative shortly before scheduled releases; Warren was later discharged but returned to prison without a parole revocation hearing; Brooks remained confined and later was committed under the statutory scheme that replaced the Initiative.
- Plaintiffs sued state officials (including Pataki and OMH Commissioner Carpinello) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Fourth Amendment false imprisonment, Fourteenth Amendment procedural and substantive due process, Equal Protection, and state-law claims seeking damages for unlawful commitment.
- After summary judgment proceedings (and an interlocutory Second Circuit decision finding clearly established procedural due-process rights), a jury trial resulted in liability only for Carpinello on procedural due process and only nominal damages of $1 per plaintiff; other claims were rejected or resolved by Rule 50 motions.
- On appeal Warren and Brooks challenged: the jury instruction on personal involvement/proximate causation; denial of JMOL on procedural-due-process liability and on entitlement to actual damages; dismissal of false-imprisonment claims as duplicative; and various discovery/evidentiary rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jury instruction on personal involvement/proximate causation | Court omitted four Colon factors and added "material" and "foreseeably", raising plaintiffs’ burden | Instruction was acceptable; plaintiffs failed to object at trial | Waived on appeal; no plain-error relief because plaintiffs offered no evidence of other Colon factors |
| JMOL on procedural due-process liability for certain defendants (Pataki, Goord, Consilvio; Artus & Dennison) | Plaintiffs argued evidence compelled findings of personal involvement and causation | Defendants argued insufficient evidence of personal involvement or ability to remedy | Affirmed: JMOL proper for Artus & Dennison; denial of renewed JMOL for Pataki, Goord, Consilvio was correct (evidence did not compel liability) |
| Entitlement to actual (compensatory) damages — causation/no-harm-no-foul defense | Plaintiffs: defendants bore burden; without expert defendants couldn’t show plaintiffs would have been committed at a proper hearing; JMOL should have been granted for plaintiffs | Defendants: could prove by trial evidence that, even with proper pre-deprivation process, plaintiffs would have been committed (no compensable injury) | Affirmed: district court properly submitted the issue to the jury; evidence permitted jury to find defendants met their burden and plaintiffs failed to prove compensable injury |
| False-imprisonment claims dismissed as duplicative of procedural due process | Plaintiffs: false-imprisonment is a distinct tort and should have gone to jury | Defendants: damages and required proof overlap; procedural-due-process claim covers same compensable injuries | Affirmed: dismissal not erroneous because any damages recoverable on false-imprisonment were available and rejected under procedural-due-process findings; no additional relief would follow |
Key Cases Cited
- Bailey v. Pataki, 708 F.3d 391 (2d Cir. 2013) (interlocutory opinion finding Article 9 implementation violated clearly established procedural due process)
- Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247 (U.S. 1978) (actual damages for procedural due-process violations require proof of causation; nominal damages otherwise)
- Colon v. Coughlin, 58 F.3d 865 (2d Cir. 1995) (five ways to establish personal involvement for § 1983 liability)
- Patterson v. County of Oneida, 375 F.3d 206 (2d Cir. 2004) (personal involvement required for individual liability under § 1983)
- Poventud v. City of New York, 750 F.3d 121 (2d Cir. 2014) (procedural-due-process damages inquiry focuses on outcome that due process would have produced)
- Miner v. City of Glens Falls, 999 F.2d 655 (2d Cir. 1993) (nominal damages only absent causation and actual injury)
- Kerman v. City of New York, 374 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2004) (scope of damages for false imprisonment: general and special damages)
- Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (U.S. 1979) (uncertainty in psychiatric diagnosis and institutionalization determinations)