No. 20-1287

Recovery Innovations, Inc., et al. v. Kenneth Rawson

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2021-03-16
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response RequestedResponse WaivedRelisted (2)
Tags: 42-usc-1983 civil-rights constitutional-rights due-process federal-law involuntary-commitment mental-health mental-health-services state-action state-action-doctrine
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity DueProcess JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2021-09-27 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether private healthcare providers are state actors under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when providing mental health services pursuant to a state's involuntary commitment law

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED In Lebron v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., 513 U.S. 374, 378 (1995), this Court noted inconsistency in decisions determining whether a private party is a state actor for the purpose of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Writing in dissent, Justice O’Connor expressed concern that this discontinuity in the law will allow the lower courts to continue to adopt differing approaches to this question of federal law, making it impossible to predict who will or will not be deemed a state actor in any particular case. Lebron, 513 U.S. at 408-09. In the decision below, the Ninth Circuit selected factors from different tests to hold that private medical professionals are state actors when providing mental health services pursuant to a state’s involuntary commitment law, despite numerous decisions from other Circuit Courts of Appeals having previously applied different versions of the state action test to reach the opposite conclusion. The question presented is: Whether through the provision of mental health services, a private, non-profit hospital and private healthcare providers become state actors, subject to claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, when they provide mental health services to a person who was deemed to be “gravely disabled” and to “present[] a likelihood of serious harm to others” under the state’s involuntary commitment law. ii CORPORATE DISCLOSURE All Petitioners are listed in the caption. The Petitioners that are not individuals have no parent corporations and no publicly held companies own 10% or more of their stock. STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES Rawson v. Recovery Innovations, Inc., et al., No. 3:17cv-05342-BHS, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. Judgment entered June 18, 2019. Rawson v. Recovery Innovations, Inc., et al., No. 1935520, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Judgment entered September 9, 2020. Rawson v. Recovery Innovations, Inc., et al., No. 19-208779-5, Superior Court of the State of Washington, Pierce County.

Docket Entries

2021-10-04
Petition DENIED.
2021-07-28
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021.
2021-07-26
Reply of petitioners Recovery Innovations, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed)
2021-07-09
Brief of respondent Kenneth Rawson in opposition filed.
2021-04-20
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including July 12, 2021.
2021-04-19
Motion to extend the time to file a response from May 12, 2021 to July 12, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
2021-04-12
Response Requested. (Due May 12, 2021)
2021-03-31
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/16/2021.
2021-03-17
Waiver of right of respondent Kenneth Rawson to respond filed.
2021-03-12
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 15, 2021)

Attorneys

Kenneth Rawson
Timothy K. FordMacDonald Hoague & Bayless, Respondent
Recovery Innovations, Inc., et al.
Lory R. LybeckLybeck Pedreira & Justus, PLLC, Petitioner