Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

BOBBY RAY GRADY,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 4:10cv57-RH/WCS

THERESA E. BAKER,

Defendant.

 /

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, filed an amended civil rights complaint on

March 23, 2010, doc. 6. This version of the complaint has been reviewed.

Plaintiff's amended complaint, doc. 6, is against a psychologist employed at the

Florida State Hospital where Plaintiff is confined. Doc. 6. According to Plaintiff, the

Defendant (Dr. Baker) submitted a report containing clinical findings which Plaintiff

claims are false, exaggerations, perjury, and designed to prevent Plaintiff's "release

from the hospital." Doc. 6, pp. 5-6. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's false reports to the

court is perjury and violates his constitutional rights. Id., at 8-10. As relief, Plaintiff
Page 2 of 4

seeks five hundred thousand dollars from the Defendant and to have her position at the

hospital terminated. Id., at 7. 

Attached to Plaintiff's complaint is a copy of a Clinical Summary, prepared by the

Defendant on or about June 18, 2009, and a report of M. S. Maher, M.D., a psychiatrist,

on the same date. Doc. 6, pp. 10-20. The document was prepared for state criminal

case number 07CFO19581A. Id., p. 10. The purpose was to determine whether

Plaintiff meets the criteria for continued commitment to the Florida Department of

Children and Families, though it was uncertain whether Plaintiff had been found not

guilty by reason of insanity, or whether charges remained pending and the issue was

competency to go to trial. Id., p. 11. Dr. Maher found that Plaintiff was competent to

stand trial, and the reports were directed to "placement issues" for purposes of

treatment. Id. The evaluation of Dr. Baker and Dr. Maher address Plaintiff's mental

status, diagnosis, behavior, and history. Id., pp. 10-20. Both Drs. Baker and Maher

concluded that Plaintiff's condition still meets the criteria for involuntary hospitalization

under FLA. STAT. § 916.15. Id., pp. 20, 14. Plaintiff contends the differences in those

reports show that the Defendant Baker gave a false report.

Assuming all that Plaintiff alleges is true, Plaintiff's only claim against the

Defendant concerns the preparation of the report, which Plaintiff contends is false. It is

apparent, however, that the report was for a state court determination of whether

Plaintiff should continue to be involuntarily committed. Presumably, based at least in

part on that report, the judicial decision was made to continue Plaintiff's involuntary

commitment and psychiatric treatment. Plaintiff's current address indicates he is still

receiving some type of treatment. He is now detained at the North Florida Evaluation

Case No. 4:10cv57-RH/WCS
Page 3 of 4

and Treatment Center in Gainesville, but was at the Florida State Hospital in

Chattahoochee at the time the complaint was filed. 

Defendant was involuntarily committed for treatment, and Dr. Baker's report was

to the state court. When a witness provides testimony in judicial proceedings, the

witness has immunity from monetary damages for providing that testimony. Briscoe v.

LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 103 S.Ct. 1108, 75 L.Ed.2d 96 (1983); see also Strength v.

Hubert, 854 F.2d 421 (11th Cir.1988) (immunity during grand jury proceedings); Burns

v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 490-92, 111 S.Ct. 1934, 114 L.Ed.2d 547 (1991) (prosecutors

enjoy absolute immunity when examining a witness and presenting evidence in support

of a search warrant during a probable cause hearing); Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S.

409, 430, 96 S.Ct. 984, 994-995, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976) (prosecutorial immunity);

Mastroianni v. Bowers, 173 F.3d 1363 (11th Cir. 1999). For the same reasons that

police officers enjoy absolute immunity as lay witnesses for their testimony at trial, see

Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 103 S.Ct. 1108, 75 L.Ed.2d 96 (1983), a psychiatrist

should also enjoy immunity for providing this sort of testimony. If a witness provides

false testimony, in such circumstances the penalty for perjury provides adequate

warning and remedy. Briscoe, 460 U.S. at 342, 103 S.Ct. 1108; Jones v. Cannon, 174

F.3d 1271, 1281 (11th Cir. 1999). The remedy is not to undermine testimony through

the filing of a civil rights action.

Moreover, Plaintiff does not present a valid claim against Defendant Baker for

rendering her medical opinion. Plaintiff's allegations are insufficient to state a § 1983

claim for violation of any constitutional rights. Plaintiff has not shown that the Defendant

was deliberately indifferent to his medical needs or to a substantial risk to his safely. 

Case No. 4:10cv57-RH/WCS
Page 4 of 4

See Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 102 S.Ct. 2452, 73 L.Ed.2d 28 (1982)

(treatment decisions made by medical professionals are "entitled to presumption of

correctness"). The treatment decision of the psychiatrist who wrote an evaluation for

the state court should not be challenged in a civil rights case. There is simply no

allegation that the Defendant failed to provide care to Plaintiff, failed to protect his safety

or provide for his needs.

Finally, Plaintiff may not seek to collaterally challenge his confinement through a

civil rights action. Any challenge to the state court's decision to continue Plaintiff's

detention is through a habeas petition. 

In light of the foregoing, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's

amended complaint, doc. 6, be DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief

may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), and that the order adopting this

report and recommendation direct the Clerk of Court to note on the docket that this

cause was dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on March 31, 2010.

s/ William C. Sherrill, Jr. 

WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and

recommendations within 14 days after being served with a copy of this report and

recommendation. A party may respond to another party's objections within 14

days after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to file specific objections

limits the scope of review of proposed factual findings and recommendations.

Case No. 4:10cv57-RH/WCS