Montin v. Gibson, No. 12-2577 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff, an involuntarily committed mental patient, sued various officials alleging that a facility-wide change in policy deprived him of a previously held ability to walk unsupervised around an unsecured area of the grounds at the Center where he was committed. Where, as here, it was difficult even to characterize the claimed restriction as a bodily restraint, the balancing test of the professional-judgment standard necessarily lead the court to conclude that plaintiff's claims failed. Even if plaintiff had articulated a protected liberty interest, there was no substantive due process violation where nothing about the policy at issue shocked the conscience. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's due process claim.
Court Description: Civil Case - civil rights. Refusal to permit an involuntarily civilly committed person to walk unsupervised in an unsecured area does not rise to the level of "bodily restraint," and thus the district court did not err in dismissing due process claim. Even if a protected liberty interest is involved, the change in policy did not rise to the level of a substantive due process violation.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.