Private, nonprofit detoxification facility was not entitled to qualified immunity for holding man incommunicado for six hours

Halvorsen v. Baird, 146 F.3d 680 (9th Cir. 1998). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held a private contractor that operated a detoxification facility for a city was not entitled to qualified immunity from a 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim.

Here, believing Halvorsen was drunk, police took him to a private, nonprofit detoxification facility, where he was held for about six hours. While there, he was not allowed to contact his wife, and the facility would not verify to her that he was there, because of confidentiality rules.

Halvorsen sued the facility's owner and several of its employees, among others, under 1983, alleging he had been deprived of due process because he had been held incommunicado for six hours.

Defendants moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. They argued they had been performing a quasi-governmental function under a state statute permitting police to take intoxicated people to private treatment facilities. The trial court denied the motion. The jury later found for defendants.

Affirming in part and reversing in part, the Ninth Circuit cited Richardson v. McKnight, 117 S. Ct. 2100 (1997), holding a private firm providing prison guard services was not entitled to qualified immunity against 1983 claims. There, the U.S. Supreme Court said the most important purpose of the immunity doctrine is to avoid official timidity caused by the threat of liability. A private guard firm showing timidity, however, would face threats of replacement by other firms with records that demonstrate their ability to do a safer and more effective job.

The court here found that the detox facility was similar to the private prison guard firm. Both compete for municipal contracts and have incentives to display effective performance, the court said.

Moreover, the court ruled the trial court had erred in not allowing the jury to decide if defendants were liable under 1983 for holding plaintiff incommunicado. Citing a well-established tradition against holding prisoners incommunicado, the court found Halvorsen's six-hour confinement could not be held too short, as a matter of law, to entitle him to communicate.

Thus, the court remanded. Plaintiff's Counsel: Spencer M. Neal, Portland, Or. Paul W. Dudley, Portland, Or.

Copyright Association of Trial Lawyers of America Dec 1998
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved