Winkel v. Hammond
704 F. App'x 735
10th Cir.2017Background
- Plaintiff Robert Winkel, a pretrial detainee at Larned State Security Hospital (LSSH), alleged LSSH staff forcibly administered antipsychotic injections while he was under competency evaluation.
- Winkel sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming a Fourteenth Amendment due process violation (forced antipsychotics for a non-dangerous pretrial detainee without required hearing).
- District court granted IFP, ordered a Martinez report from LSSH, received the report, and then sua sponte dismissed Winkel’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim, relying on facts in the Martinez report.
- The district court concluded the medication administrations were medically appropriate and resulted from an administrative determination considering relevant medical factors.
- Winkel appealed, arguing the district court improperly relied on the Martinez report (and effectively granted summary judgment) without giving him a chance to respond.
- On appeal the Tenth Circuit reviewed de novo, held the district court erred in using the Martinez report to resolve factual disputes at the pleading stage, and found Winkel’s complaint, viewed alone, plausibly alleged a due process violation, so reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court could rely on the Martinez report to dismiss under §1915A/Rule 12(b)(6) | Winkel: court cannot use Martinez report to refute pleadings; dismissal must rest on complaint alone | Defendants/LSSH: Martinez report supports that procedures and factual findings defeat the claim | Court: Erred — Martinez report may not be used to resolve factual disputes at pleading stage absent opportunity to respond |
| Whether the court’s use of the Martinez report without giving Winkel a chance to respond converted dismissal into sua sponte summary disposition | Winkel: court effectively granted summary judgment without notice or chance to respond | Implicit: report justified dismissal on its face | Court: Error — no opportunity to respond; district court acted improperly |
| Whether Winkel’s complaint plausibly alleged a Fourteenth Amendment due process violation for forced antipsychotic medication | Winkel: alleges he was non-dangerous and no Sell-type hearing occurred; injections intended to make him more receptive | Defendants: medical staff determined medication necessary and appropriate based on records (per Martinez report) | Court: Viewing complaint alone, Winkel plausibly alleged a due process violation; dismissal was improper |
| Whether involuntary antipsychotic medication of a non-dangerous pretrial detainee requires judicial Sell-type analysis | Winkel: trial court failed to hold required hearing assessing necessity and Sell factors | Defendants: administrative/medical determinations sufficed | Court: Sell principles apply; absence of such judicial determination supports plaintiff's claim at pleading stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210 (1970s) (state may involuntarily medicate a prisoner who is dangerous or for medical interest under due process constraints)
- Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (2003) (involuntary medication to restore competency requires court findings balancing governmental trial-related interests and individual liberty)
- United States v. Bradley, 417 F.3d 1107 (10th Cir. 2005) (Sell factors control involuntary medication of pretrial detainees to restore competency)
- Martinez v. Aaron, 570 F.2d 317 (10th Cir. 1978) (authorizes district courts to order investigation/reports to assist pro se complaints, but limits on use at pleading stage)
- Swoboda v. Dubach, 992 F.2d 286 (10th Cir. 1993) (district court may not use Martinez report to refute facts pleaded by plaintiff or resolve factual disputes)
- Gee v. Pacheco, 627 F.3d 1178 (10th Cir. 2010) (complaint sufficiency generally judged by its contents alone; limited exceptions for outside filings following opportunity to respond)