Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01378/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01378-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dr. Robert W. Marshall
Appellee
Robert H. Ketchum
Appellant

Document Text:

FIL~D 

U r~1led Stat~ C,ourt of Appeab 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT MAY 1 D 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk ROBERT H. KETCHUM, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

DR. ROBERT W. MARSHALL, 

Defendant-Appellee . 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) No. 91-1378 

) (D.C. No. 90-F-1627) 

) (D . Colo.) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, BARRETT, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

Appellant Robert H. Ketchum claimed damages under 

42 U. S.C S 1983 for allegedly being forced by a state hospital 

psychiatrist to take an increased dosage of an antipsychotic drug 

as punishment while plaintiff was voluntarily conunitted at the 

hospital for treatment of a severe psychiatric disorder. The 

issue in this appeal is whether the district court properly 

entered summary judgement in favor of defendant. 1 We affirm. 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

1 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P . (continued on next page) 

1 

Appellate Case: 91-1378 Document: 010110249180 Date Filed: 05/19/1992 Page: 1
The district court originally dismissed plaintiff's complaint 

under Rule 12(b)(6), and plaintiff appealed. This court affirmed 

in part and reversed and remanded in part, stating: 

Even though Mr. Ketchum had voluntarily committed 

himself at the time, the Supreme Court has stated 

psychiatric patients have a "significant liberty 

interest in avoiding the unwarranted administration of 

antipsychotic drugs under the Due Process Clause of the 

Fourteenth Amendment." Washington v. Harper, 110 S. Ct. 

1028, 1036 (1990). See also Bee v. Greaves, 744 F.2d 

1387, 1392-93 (10th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 

1214 (1985); People v. Medina, 705 P.2d 961, 967 

(Colo. 1985) . 

While these cases deal with involuntarily committed 

patients, the broad sweep of Washington suggests Mr. 

Ketchum's complaint does state a claim on its face. We 

offer no opinion, at this time, whether a voluntarily 

committed mental patient is entitled to the same due 

process considerations as an involuntary patient. We do 

conclude, however, the complaint cannot be dismissed 

without consideration of the issue in the district 

court. 

Ketchum v. Marshal [sic], No. 90-1281 (10th Cir. Feb. 25, 1991). 

On remand, the district court referred the matter to a 

magistrate judge and accepted the magistrate judge's 

recommendation that summary judgment should enter in favor of 

defendant. 2 The district court's summary judgment order 

acknowledged the issue which troubled this court on appeal, but 

granted summary judgment on the threshold question of whether 

plaintiff was forcibly drugged with antipsychotic medication. 

Ketchum v. Marshall, No . 90-CV-1627, Order at 4 (D. Colo. Oct. 30, 

(continued from previous page) 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

2 The magistrate also recommended that plaintiff be sanctioned 

with an award of defendant's attorney's fees, a recommendation the 

distr ict court declined to accept. 

2 

Appellate Case: 91-1378 Document: 010110249180 Date Filed: 05/19/1992 Page: 2
1991). The district court noted that plaintiff consented to the 

administration of the drugs in question, objecting only to the 

dosage which was prescribed. In addition, it noted that plaintiff 

voluntarily took the increased dosage while he was hospitalized 

and after he was released from the state hospital. Plaintiff 

appeals, contending that whether he consented to the 

administration of the drugs at the hospital was a disputed 

question of fact which the district court inappropriately resolved 

as part of its summary judgment order. 

Plaintiff brought this action under 42 u.s.c. § 1983. 

Pertinent to the claim on review here, plaintiff alleged that 

defendant violated his right to due process by administering an 

increased dosage of thorazine . "[I]n order to recover in federal 

court through § 1983 a plaintiff must show: 

constitutional right was violated; and (2) 

(1) a federal 

the individual 

violating the constitutional right did so under color of law." 

Quezada v. County of Bernalillo, 944 F.2d 710, 714 (10th Cir. 

1991). The district court's order here is a determination that 

plaintiff failed to make sufficient showing that one of his 

federal constitutional rights was violated. 

We review summary judgment determinations de novo. 

"We apply the same legal standard used by the district 

court under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) and examine the record 

to determine if any genuine issue of material fact was 

in dispute; if not, we determine if the substantive law 

was correctly applied." While we view the record in the 

light most favorable to the party opposing summary 

judgment, "the nonrnoving party may not rest on its 

pleadings but must set forth specific facts showing that 

there is a genuine issue for trial as to those 

dispositive matters for which it carries the burden of 

proof." 

3 

Appellate Case: 91-1378 Document: 010110249180 Date Filed: 05/19/1992 Page: 3
Phillips v. Calhoun, 956 F.2d 949, 950 (10th Cir. 1992)(citations 

omitted) . 

The following facts relevant to this appeal are undisputed: 

At the time of the incident of which plaintiff complains, he had 

voluntarily committed himself to the state hospital for treatment 

of psychiatric problems. At that time, plaintiff was voluntarily 

taking thorazine, an antipsychotic drug, in 300 mg. doses. The 

dosage of thorazine was increased to 400 mg. under the medical 

judgment of defendant. The additional dosage was not forcibly 

injected into plaintiff's body; he took the medication himself 

orally when it was dispensed to him. Under these circumstances, 

we cannot determine that plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment due 

process right has been violated, regardless of whether he 

voluntarily committed himself to the state hospital or was 

involuntarily committed there. Although plaintiff cites other 

allegations from his pleadings which he says are disputed 

questions of fact rendering summary judgment ~nappropriate, 3 none 

are issues of fact material to the issue of whether plaintiff's 

constitutional rights were violated by defendant under the 

circumstances described herein. 

Plaintiff's objection to the dosage of his medication is in 

essence a dispute with his physician as to whether the medical 

treatment prescribed by the physician was appropriate. This 

objection does not rise to the level of a constitutional claim 

3 

~, was he coerced into 

by a threat of involuntary 

cease after forty-eight hours, 

of his hospitalization? 

voluntarily taking the medication 

injection; did the increased dosage 

or did it continue for the duration 

4 

Appellate Case: 91-1378 Document: 010110249180 Date Filed: 05/19/1992 Page: 4
unless it amounts to deliberate indifference to serious medical 

needs. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976); Sawyer v. 

County of Creek, 908 F.2d 663, 667 (10th Cir. 1990). On the 

record before us, plaintiff did not allege facts to support 

deliberate indifference to serious medical needs by defendant. 

Accordingly, the district court was correct in its 

determination that it need not reach the legal issue of whether a 

patient voluntarily committed to a state institution could be 

forced to take antipsychotic medication. The judgment of the 

United States District Court for the District of Colorado is 

AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

James E. Barrett, 

Senior Circuit Judge 

5 

Appellate Case: 91-1378 Document: 010110249180 Date Filed: 05/19/1992 Page: 5