# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls
For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 2- 25 77

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Jo hn Max well Mo nt in

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

Bi ll Gib so n

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

The Est at e o f Dal e Jo hn so n; Bil l Zi nn ; J es si e Ras sm en se n; Barb ra Ra m se y ; Ch ris ti ne Pet ers on

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t s

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of Ne br as ka - Lin co ln

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: May 15, 2 01 3 Fil ed : J un e 2 8, 2 01 3

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , MELLOY and SHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

MELLOY, Circu it Ju dg e.Pl ai nt iff Jo hn Max w e l l M o n ti n ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t's ad ve rs e gr an t of 1

su m m ary jud gm en t o n h is civ il -ri gh ts co m pl ai nt . W e aff

irm.

I. Bac kg ro un d

Mo nt i n i s a n in vo lu nt ari ly co m m it te d m en ta l pa ti en t ho us ed in th e se cu re fo ren si cs un it of th e Lin co ln Reg io na l C e n te r in Lin co ln , Ne br as ka ("C en te r")

. He

w a s c o n f i ne d to th e Cen te r in 19 94 aft er a jury fo un d hi m no t gu il ty by reas o n o f

in sa ni ty fo ll owi ng a t r i a l o n ch arg es of fal se im pr is on m en t an d us e of a fir earm to

co m m it a fel on y

. In 20 07

, he su ed va rio us of fic ia ls al le gi ng th at a faci li ty-wide

ch an ge in po li cy d e p r i v ed hi m of a pr ev io us ly he ld ab il it y to walk un su pe rv is ed

aro un d an un se cu red area of th e g ro un ds at t he Cen te r. He all eg ed th is de pr iv at io n

am ou nt ed to a vi ol at io n of hi s du e pr oc es s an d eq ua l pr ot ect io n rig ht s un de r th e U.S.

an d Neb ras ka Co ns ti tu ti on s. The di st ric t co ur t di sm is se d th e co m pl ai nt as un ti m el y

.

In a pr io r op in io n, we di sc us se d de ta il s of th e faci li ty's po li ci es , ch an ge s to th e

po li ci es , a nd Mo nt in 's hi st or y at th e faci li ty. Se e Mo nt in v. Est at e of Jo hn so n, 63 6

F.3 d 40 9, 41 0– 12 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (" M on ti n I")

. W e rem an de d fo r th e di st ric t co ur t

to ad dr es s cert ai n fact ua l qu es ti on s an d pr e v i o us ly un ad dr es se d le ga l qu es ti on s

su rro un di ng st at ut e-o f- l i m it at io ns an d eq ui ta bl e-t ol li ng is su es

. W e ex pr es se d no

o p i n io n as to th e su bs ta nt iv e m eri ts of th e di sp ut e. W e in di cat ed th at th e pr eci s e

co n to ur s of Mo nt in 's cl ai m s were no t cl ear, an d we st at ed th at "n ot hi ng in th is

op in io n sh ou ld be in te rp ret ed as pr oh ib it in g th e co ur t from en te rta in in g su bs ta nt iv e

arg um en ts or di sp os it iv e m ot io ns as to th e ul ti m at e m eri ts of th e un de rlyin g cl ai m s."

Id . at 4 16

.

The Hon or ab le Ch eryl R. Zwart, Uni te d St a t e s Mag is tra te Ju dg e fo r th e 1
Dis tri ct of Neb ras ka

, pr es id in g by th e co ns en t of th e pa r t i es pu rs ua nt to 28 U.S.C. § 6 36 (c).

-2

-On rem an d, th e de fen da nt s ab an do ne d th ei r st at ut e-o f

- l i mi ta ti on s arg um en ts

an d th e pa rti es fil ed cro ss -m ot io ns fo r su m m ary jud gm en t on th e m eri ts

. In do in g so , Mo nt in fle sh ed ou t hi s al le ga ti on s of co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io ns

. He di d no t arg ue th at
he was pr ev en te d fro m walk in g ou td oo rs , m erel y th at he was pr ev en te d fro m walk in g in t h e u n s ecu red area wit ho ut su pe rv is io n. The di st ric t co ur t in te rp ret ed Mo nt in 's

arg um en ts su rro un di ng th is pu rp or te d de pr iv at io n as pr es en ti ng tw o s e p arat e

su bs ta nt iv e du e pr oc es s cl ai m s. Fi rs t, Mo nt in arg ue d th at th e faci li ty's ch an ge in 2

po li cy in fri ng ed hi s li be rty in te res t in av oi di ng un ne ces sa ry bo di ly res tra in t. Seco nd

, he arg ue d th at he po ss es se d a co ns ti tu ti on al ly pr ot ect ed li be rty in te res t creat ed by a

st at e st at u t e r eq ui rin g hi s co m m it m en t to th e le as t res tri ct iv e av ai la bl e se tt in g wit h

m ed ic al ly ap pr op ria te men t a l -h eal th tre at m en t. Acco rd in g to Mo nt in

, th e faci li ty

po li cy pr ecl ud in g un su pe rv is ed walk s se rv ed to un co ns ti tu ti on al ly li m it th e po ss ib le

tre at m en t reco m

m en da ti on s of m en ta l-h eal th p r o f e s s io na ls an d res ul te d in ov erl y

res tri ct iv e co nf

in em en t wi th ou t m ed ic al ly app ro pr ia te m en ta l-h eal th tre at m en t.

The di st ric t co ur t in te rp re t e d Mo nt in 's rig ht s un de r th e U.S. an d Neb ras ka

Co ns ti tu ti on s to be co -ex te ns iv e as to th e is su es pr es en te d. The co ur t co nc lu de d th at
th e refu sa l to pe rm it un su pe rv is ed walk s on th e un se cu red gr ou nd s of th e faci li ty di d

no t am ou nt to b o d i l y r es tra in t an d was no t th e de pr iv at io n of a pr ot ect ed li be rty
i n t e res t. The co ur t he ld in th e al te rn at iv e th at
, ev en if Mo nt in ha d art ic ul a t e d a

pr ot ect ed li be rty in te res t in th is reg ard

, th e Cen te r's ge ne ral ch an ge in po li cy di d no t
ris e to th e le ve l of a su bs ta nt iv e du e pr oc es s vi ol at io n. The co ur t al so co nc lu de d th at
,

ev en if t h e r e were a vi ol at io n of a st at e-l aw req ui rem en t fo r th e le as t res tri ct iv e

Mo nt in pu rp or te d to al so as se rt a pr oc ed ur al du e pr oc es s cl ai m , bu t th e di st ric t 2

co ur t vi ewed hi s cl ai m as in di st in gu is ha bl e fro m a n eq ua l pr ot ect io n cl ai m th at he ab an do ne d. On ap pe al

, ba se d up on th e cap ti on s us ed in hi s br ie f, he ap pe ars to ag ai n at te m pt to rai se a pr oc ed ur al du e pr oc es s cl ai m

. His arg um en t s r e ga rd in g su ch a cl ai m , ho wev er, are no t m at eri al ly di st in ct fro m hi s su bs t a n t i ve du e pr oc es s cl ai m , an d h e d oe s n ot art ic ul at e cl earl y what pro ces s h e h as be en de ni ed

.

-3

-se tt in g an d ap pr op ria te m en ta l-h eal th tre at m en t, no su ch st at e-l aw vi ol at io n sh oc ke d

th e co ns ci en ce as req ui red to est ab li sh a su bs ta nt iv e d ue pro ces s v io la ti on

.

II. Dis cu ss io n

W e rev ie w a gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t de no vo

. Owner s I n s

. Co

. v.
Euro pe an Aut o Work s, In c., 69 5 F .3d 81 4, 8 18 (8t h C ir. 2 01 2)

.

A. Bo di ly Rest rai nt

T he Su pr em e Co ur

t ha s re co gni ze d tha t in vo lu nt ari ly ci villy co m m itt ed pe rs ons ho ld a pr ot ect ed li be rty in te res t to be free fro m un ne ces sa ry bo di ly res tra in t.

You ng be rg v. Ro m eo , 45 7 U.S. 30 7, 32 0– 22 (1 98 2)

. Neit he r ou r c o u r t no r th e
Su pr em e Co ur t hav e he ld th at a refu sa l to pe rm it an in vo lu nt ari ly ci vi ll y co m m it te d

pe rs on to walk un su pe rv i s ed in an un se cu red area ris es to th e le ve l of a "b od il y

res tra in t." The re is a st ark di ffer en ce be twee n act ua l p h ys i c a l res tra in ts we ha ve ad dr es se d in pr io r o p in io ns an d th e in te res t Mo nt in as se rts in th is cas e. See,

e.g ., Bea ul ie u v. Lud em an , 69 0 F.3 d 10 17

, 10 31 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (u se of "a bl ack bo x,

a wris t ch ai n, an d le g iro ns " fo r "t rav el ou ts id e of th e se cu re pe rimeter" ); St ru tt on v.
Mea de , 66 8 F .3d 54 9, 5 53 (8t h C ir. 2 01 2) (us e of a "re st ric ti on tab le "); Heid em an n

v. Ro th er, 84 F.3 d 10 21

, 10 25 (8 th Ci r. 19 96 ) (ti gh tl y bi nd in g wit h a bl an ke t th e bo dy

of a no n- ve rb al

, ph y si cal ly an d m en ta ll y d i s a b le d ni ne -y ear- ol d gi rl who su ffer ed

fro m ep il ep sy).

At so m e po in t al on g th e sp ect ru m of res tri ct io ns th at m ig ht po te nt ia ll y be

ch arac te riz ed as b od il y

res tra in ts , th e as se rte d rest rai nt be co m es m erel y an in ci de nt
of th e fact of co m

m it m en t. W e st res s aga in th at Mo nt in do es no t actu al ly co m pl ai n ab ou t a de ni al of acce ss to un se cu red po rti on s of th e Cen te r's gr ou nd s or an in ab il it y

to walk ou td oo rs

. He c o mp l a in s on ly ab ou t a de ni al of un su pe rv is ed acce ss to th e

-4

-un se cu red gr ou nd s. W e be li ev e th at Mo nt in si m pl y ha s fa il ed to art ic ul at e a bo di ly

res tra in t.

Eve n if Mo nt in 's al le ga ti on s di d su gg es t a bo di l y res tra in t pu rs ua nt to

You ng be rg , ho wev er, hi s cl ai m wou ld fai l. The te st fo r as se ss in g th e co ns ti tu tiona li ty
of su ch a res tra in t is a "p ro fes si on al jud gm en t" te st

. You ng be rg , 4 5 7 U

. S

. at 32 1.

Pu rs ua nt to th is t e s t
, gr eat de fere nc e is owe d to th e pr of es si on al jud gm en t of a

qu al ifi ed pr of

es si on al ch arg ed wit h ba la nc in g th e pl ai nt iff 's free do m fro m bo di ly

res tra in t ag ai ns t th e sa fet y of th e pu bl ic

, th e pl ai nt iff

, an d ot he r pa ti en ts

. Id

. ("I t is no t

ap pr op ria te fo r th e co ur ts to sp eci fy whi ch of se v e r a l pr of es si on al ly acce pt ab le

ch oi ces sh ou ld ha v e b e e n m ad e.") (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. W he re, as he re, it is di ffi cu lt ev en to ch arac te riz e th e cl ai m ed res tri ct io n as a bo di ly res tra in t, th e ba la nc in g te st of the pr of

es siona l-ju dg m en t st an da rd ne ces sa ril y le ad s to fai lu re of th e

pa ti en t's cla im s.

B. "Co ns ci en ce-S ho ck in g" Sta nd ard

W he n You ng be rg do es no t app ly, th e "p ro fes si on al -jud gm en t" st an da rd do es

no t ap pl y

. St ru tt on , 66 8 F.3d at 55 7. In su ch a si tu at io n, a pl ai nt iff m ay m ai nt ai n a

su bs ta nt iv e du e pr oc es s c l a i m o n ly if th e co nt es te d st at e act io n is "s o eg reg io us or

ou tra ge ou s th at it is co ns ci en ce-s ho ck in g." Bu rto n v. Ri ch m on d, 37 0 F.3 d 72 3, 72 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ). Not hi ng ab ou t th e po li cy at is su e in Mo nt in 's cas e ap pr oa ch es th is

st an da rd

.

Fi na ll y , it is well s e t t l e d th at th e li be rty in te res t at th e he art of a du e pr oc es s cl ai m m ay be a rig ht crea te d by st at e la w, as is th e cas e wit h Mo nt in 's se co nd cl ai m

. See K y. D e pt . o f Co rr. v. Tho m ps on , 4 90 U.S. 4 54 , 4 60 (1 98 9) ( "Pr ot ect ed li be rty
in te res ts m ay ari se fro m

. . . th e la ws of th e St at es .") (ci ta ti on an d in te rn al qu ot at io n

m ark s om it te d)

. W e em p l o y t h e sa m e "co ns ci en ce-s ho ck in g" st an da rd fo r su ch

cl ai m s be cau se "[w]e rem ai n cau ti ou s no t to tu rn ev ery al le ge d st at e la w vi ol at io n

-5

-in to a co ns ti tu ti on al cl ai m ." St ru tt on , 66 8 F.3 d at 55 7. Here, ev en as su m in g Mo nt in

ha s art ic ul at ed a li be rty in te res t crea te d by st at e la w rel at in g to hi s act ua l co nf in em en t

an d tre at m en t, or rel at in g to li m it at io ns up on m ed ic al pr of es si on al s' tr e at m en t

reco m m en da ti on s in li gh t of se cu rit y po li ci es , n ot hi ng ab ou t t he Cen te r's act io ns is "eg reg io us ," "o ut ra g e o u s ," or "co ns ci en ce-s ho ck in g." W e refu se to di lu te th es e

co nc ep ts ba se d u po n t he pre se nt all eg at io ns

.

W e aff irm th e wel l-r eas on ed jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-6

-