Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01281/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01281-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dr. Marshal
Appellee
Robert H. Ketchum
Appellant

Document Text:

l '• 

FILED 

United States C.ourt of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COOR'!' OF APPEALS 

FOR '.rllB TBftll CIRCUIT 

FEB 2 5 1991 

ROBERT H. KETCHUM, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

DR. MARSHAL, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

:&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-1281 

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

(D. Colorado) 

ORDER ARD JUDGIIBRT* 

Before LOGAR, IIOORB, and BALDOClt, Circuit Judges. 

IIOORB, Circuit Judge. 

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. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

*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. 

Appellate Case: 90-1281 Document: 010110028850 Date Filed: 02/25/1991 Page: 1 
'• 

The district court, in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 

12(b)(6), dismissed Mr. Ketchum's 42 u.s.c. S 1983 action upon a 

finding that the complaint failed to 

examined the record and conclude 

dismissing one of plaintiff's claims. 

state a claim. We have 

the court erred in summarily 

The complaint asserted that while Mr. Ketchum was a patient 

at the Colorado State Hospital, defendant Dr. Marshal forced him 

to take an antipsychotic drug. 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. 

We have examined the remaining issues and conclude the trial 

court correctly determined they raise no justiciable claim. The 

court properly concluded Mr. Ketchum pled no facts to support his 

claim that the defendant violated plaintiff's First Amendment 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-1281 Document: 010110028850 Date Filed: 02/25/1991 Page: 2 
rights or participated in an unlawful denial of plaintiff's Social 

Security benefits. 

AFFIRMED IR PART, REVERSED IR PART, and REIIARDED FOR FURTHER 

PROCEBDIRGS. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-1281 Document: 010110028850 Date Filed: 02/25/1991 Page: 3