Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jane Doe v. Rosenberg
166 F.3d 507
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1999-01-29
- Topic
- general
How later courts describe this case
- affirming for “substantially the reasons set forth in the district court’s comprehensive and scholarly opinion”
- involuntary hospitalization and medication was “not traditionally within the exclusive prerogative of the state,” and the other tests for state action were also not satisfied
- “On the question of whether the defendants acted under color of state law, we affirm for substantially the reasons set forth in the district court’s comprehensive and scholarly opinion.”
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Jane Doe v. Rosenberg. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 35 opinions
On May 5,1996, [ Jane ] [ Doe ] was involuntarily committed to the psychiatric ward at Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center. After successfully challenging her confinement pursuant to § 9.31 of New York’s Mental Hygiene Law, she was released on May 16, 1996. She then brought suit alleging, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , that her physician, as well as Columbia Presbyterian and several of Columbia Presbyterian’s employees — all private individuals or entities — had violated rights secured to her by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. [ Doe ]s complaint also contained several state law causes of action.
The district court, granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, dismissed [ Doe ]s § 1983 claim on the ground that the defendants are not state actors and that they therefore did not act under color of state law. See [ Doe ] v. Rosenberg, 996 F.Supp. 343 , 348-58 (S.D.N.Y.1998). The court dismissed [ Doe ]s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (c)(3) (1994). See id. at 358 . On appeal, [ Doe ] challenges the district court’s conclusion that the defendants are not state actors. She also challenges certain of the district court’s discovery rulings.
On the question of whether the defendants acted under color of state law, we affirm for substantially the reasons set forth in the district court’s comprehensive and scholarly opinion. We further conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying [ Doe ] the discovery she sought.
The judgment is therefore affirmed.