Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03402/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03402-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3402

___________

Michael David Masek, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. *

* 

Bob Wills, Unit Manager; * 

*

Appellee. *

*

Steve Courtois, Psychologist 1; *

Byron C. English, Psychologist 1; *

* Appeal from the United States

Defendants, * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Geraldine English, Forensic Case *

Monitor; * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee, *

*

Susan R. Hagan, Forensic Case Monitor;*

Donna Augustine, Licensed Clinical *

Social Worker; Peicival Tiongson, Dr., *

Psychiatrist; *

*

Defendants, *

*

Dorn Schoffman; Karen Adams; *

Missouri Department of Mental Health; *

Southeast Missouri Mental Health * 

Center, *

* 

Appellees. *

Appellate Case: 04-3402 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/08/2005 Entry ID: 1937295
1

The Honorable Mary Ann L. Medler, United States Magistrate Judge for the

Eastern District of Missouri, presiding with the consent of the parties pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(c).

-2-

 

___________

Submitted: June 21, 2005

Filed: August 8, 2005

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and COLLOTON,

Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Michael David Masek, an involuntarily committed patient in the custody of the

Missouri Department of Mental Health, appeals from an adverse grant of summary

judgment in his suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Americans with Disabilities Act of

1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29

U.S.C. §§ 701-796l. We affirm.

Masek alleged that he had been denied appropriate medical treatment required

by due process of law, that he was being held in a more restrictive environment than

necessary in violation of the ADA, and that he was denied the opportunity to pursue

his chosen vocation because of his disability in violation of the Rehabilitation Act.

The district court1

 rejected Masek’s claims, concluding based on undisputed facts that

Masek had received appropriate medical treatment, that he was in the least restrictive

environment for which he was qualified, and that he had not been denied vocational

opportunities in violation of the Rehabilitation Act. Having carefully reviewed the

record, we adopt the district court’s reasoning, with one clarification.

Appellate Case: 04-3402 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/08/2005 Entry ID: 1937295
-3-

With respect to Masek’s § 1983 and Rehabilitation Act claims, the district

court concluded that the defendants named in their individual capacities were entitled

to qualified immunity. The district court correctly noted that “the ‘threshold

question’ in a qualified immunity inquiry is whether ‘[t]aken in the light most

favorable to the party asserting the injury [. . .] the facts alleged show the officer’s

conduct violated a constitutional right,’” (Add. at 17) (quoting Saucier v. Katz, 533

U.S. 194, 201 (2001)) (second alteration added), but proceeded to inquire first

whether the rights Masek claimed had been violated were clearly established. We

clarify that under the Saucier approach (which is not without its critics, e.g., Brosseau

v. Haugen, 125 S. Ct. 596, 600-01 (2004) (Breyer, J., concurring)), the first question

in a qualified immunity analysis is whether the conduct in question violated the

complainant’s rights, not whether any rights allegedly violated were “clearly

established.” 533 U.S. at 201. In the course of its analysis, however, the district

court also determined that none of Masek’s rights under § 1983 or the Rehabilitation

Act had been violated. (Add. 28, 43). For the reasons stated by the district court, we

agree that taking the allegations in the light most favorable to Masek, he has not

stated a claim for violation of any constitutional or statutory right. We therefore

affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3402 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/08/2005 Entry ID: 1937295