08
- 12 26
- cv

M o rr i son v. C i t y of N ew Y o rk

1 1 2 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS 3 F OR THE SE CO ND CI RC UI T
4 August Term, 2008 5 (Argued: April 7, 2009 Dec ided: J anuar y 11, 2010 6 Errata Opinion filed: J anuar y 26, 2010) 7 Docke t No. 08-1226-c v
8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 9 SANDRA MORRI SON, 10 Plaintif f - Appellant , 11 v. 12 CI TY OF NEW YORK, EL MHURST HOSPI TAL CENTER, ALAN AVIL ES, President and 13 CEO of the Ne w York City Hea lth and Hospitals Corporation, CHRI S CONSTANTI NO, 14 Ex ecutive D irec tor of Elmhurst Hospital Center, M.D. LAURENCE ERI C DOPKI N and M.D. 15 CL AUDIA I ORDACHE, 16 De fe nd an t- Ap pe lle es, 17 18 J OHN DO E #1 throug h #10, NEW YORK CI TY ADMI NI STRATI ON F OR CHI L DREN’S 19 SERVI CES, J OHN DO E COURT OFF I CERS , Quee ns County Family Court #1-4, J OHN DO E 20 EMPL OYERS, Queens County Family Court #1-4 and JOHN DOE EMPL OYERS OF 21 EL MHURST HOSPI TAL CENTER #1-4, 22 De fe nd an ts. 23 24 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X 25 2608
- 12 26
- cv

M o rr i son v. C i t y of N ew Y o rk

2 1 2 Be fore : J ACOBS, Chief Judge , WAL KER, and L EVAL , Circuit Judges
. 3 Appea l from an or der of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ne w 4 York (Chin, J. ) dismissing Plaintiff’s suit. The suit, broug ht under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleg ed 5 constitutional torts and related state law c laims. Pl aintiff’s c laims are pr emised on her fourtee n6 da y de te nti on at E lmhur st H os pit a l ba se d o n a fi nd ingby

ho sp ita l st a ff

tha t th e re wa s r e a so na

ble 7 cause to believe she suffe red f rom a menta l illness renderingher da ng erous to her self or othe rs. 8 Plaintiff had bee n rema nded to Elmhurst by

order of the Ne w York F amily Court for 9 deter

mination whether she suffe red f rom such a me ntal illness. The district court construe d the 10 complaint as a c halleng e to the orde r of the F amily Court and dismissed under the Ro ok e r11 Feldman doctrine. The Court of Appea ls (L eval, J. ) c on c lud e s th at Rooke r-Feldman is 12 inapplicable, a s the suit challeng es dec isions made by Elmhurst Hospital personnel which w ere 13 not compelled by the Fa mily Court order. A ffirme d in part, vac ated in par t, and re manded. 14 L EO GL I CKMA N, Sto ll, Gl ic kma

n & B e lli na , L L P, 15 Br ookly n, New Y ork, for Appellant
. 16 ALANG. KR AM S, N e w Y or

k, Ne w Y or

k ( Kr ist in 17 M. Helmers a nd Eliz abeth A. Wells, on the brief ), 18 for Micha el A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel of the 19 City of Ne w York, f

or Appellee

s . 20 L EVAL , Circuit Judge : 21 Plaintiff Sandra Morr ison appea ls from an orde r of the United States District Court for 22 the Southern District of Ne w York ( Chin, J. ) d ism iss inghe r s uit , b ro ught u nd e r 4 2 U .S. C. 23 § 1 98 3, a lle g ingtor ts und e r t he Un ite d St ate s Co ns tit

uti on and state law. Th e c omp la int a sse rt s 24 claims ag ainst the Elmhurst Hospital, and persons a ssociated with it, based on Plaintiff’s 25 de te nti on

at th e ho sp ita l f

or a pe ri od of fo ur te e n d ay s f

oll ow inghe r r e mand

fo r p syc hiatr ic08
- 12 26
- cv

M o rr i son v. C i t y of N ew Y o rk

The c omplaint asserts claims also ag ainst secur ity office rs at the F amily

Court, but 1 Plaintiff has dismissed those claims. See District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Fe ldman , 460 U.S. 462, 482-83 (1983); 2 Rooke r v. Fidelity Trust Co. , 263 U.S. 413, 414-16 (1923). 3 1 evaluation by

a judg e of the Family

Court of the State of Ne w York. The district cour t 1 2 dismiss ed the c omplaint on the basis of the Rooke r-Feldman doctrine, construingthe complaint 2 3 a s a

c ha lle ng e to t

he lawf uln e ss o f t

he F amil y Court ’s re mand

or de r. Pla int if

f c onte nd s h e r s uit 4 does not cha lleng e the F amily Court order, but r ather

challeng es the indepe ndent deter minations 5 ma de by

pe rs onne l of

the ho sp ita l – i n p art ic ula r t he de te rm inatio n th at sh e wa s a da ng e r t o 6 he rs e lf

or oth e rs and

sh ou ld t he re fo re be fu

rt he r d e ta ine d. We a g re e tha t th e c omp la int

c an b e so 7 interpre ted and that, to the e x tent the complaint see ks relief based on discr etionary

decisions of 8 the hospital that were not mandated by the Fa mily Court order, it should not have be en dismissed 9 under Rooke r-Feldman
. 10 BACK GR OUND 11 On Novembe r 9, 2005, Plaintiff, as a r espondent in a c hild neg lect proc eedingin the 12 Family

Court in J amaica , New Y ork, wa s si tti ngoutsi de the c ourt ro om, waitingfor he r ca se to be 13 called. A

ppare ntly beca use she wa s eng ag ed in hig hly emotional prayer, c ourt offic ers br oug ht 14 her be fore the judg e. Dur ing the hear ing that followed, F amily Court J udg e Rhea

G. Fr iedman, 15 who had he rself g one to the door to obser ve Plaintiff’s conduc t, noted that Plaintiff had bee n 16 “pra

ying[,] chanting a

nd seeme d quite distressed.” Judge Fr iedman then issued a n “Or der08
- 12 26
- cv

M o rr i son v. C i t y of N ew Y o rk

4 1 Di re c tin gEm e rg e nc y Ev a luatio n. ” Th e or de r p ro vid e d in pe rt ine nt p art : 2 Sandra Mor rison, a pe rs on be fo re the c ourt , has or may have a 3 mental illness which is likely to result in serious harm to . . . 4 herse lf or other s based upon the f ollowing e vidence prese nted: 5 responde nt continued to have a n outburst in the waiting a rea afte r 6 beingtold by Court Office rs to calm down 7 8 NO W, th e re fo re , it is 9 10 ORDE RED that Sand ra Mo rr iso n is re mand e d to HH C/E lmhur st 11 Hospital, a hospital specifie d in section 9.39(a) of the Menta l 12 Hy g ie ne L aw, fo r a

de te rm inatio n . . . wh e the r s uc h p e rs on sh ou ld 13 be re tained ther ein pursuant to such se ction; and it is further 14 15 ORDE RED that th e pr oc e e din gis a djo ur ne d to 11 /23 /20 05 ; and

it 16 is further 17 18 ORDERED that Court Release Only
. 19 20 The judg e explained that the re mand was f or “e valuation,” that the or der ha d provided for “cour t 21 re le a se on ly ,” and that sh e c ho se No ve mbe r 2 3 a s th e date to r e sume pr oc e e din g s b e c a us e 22 “Elmhurst nee d[s] a Wednesda y for tra nsportation.” 23 Plaintiff was then tra nsported to the Elmhurst Hospital. Upon her admission to the 24 ho sp ita l, D e fe nd ant- Ap pe lle e Dr . L a ur e nc e Do pk in c e rt if

ie d th at he ha d “ e xami ne d [he r] p ri or to 25 admission and [found] there is reasona ble ca use to believe that [she] has a me ntal illness for 26 wh ic h imme diate ob se rv atio n, c are and tr e atme nt i n a

me nta l ho sp ita l is a

pp ro pr iate and

wh ic h is 27 likely

to result in serious harm to . . . her self or othe rs.” The admission form bear s a handwritten 28 no te statin gthat Pla int if f w a s “ re mand e d f

or [psyc ho log ic a l e va luatio n] se c on da ry to08
- 12 26
- cv

M o rr i son v. C i t y of N ew Y o rk

The state la

w claims alleg e, inte r a lia , false imprisonment, medica l malprac tice, 3 n e g l i g e n c e , m a l i c i o u s p r o s e c ut i o n , a s s a u l t , an d b att e r y. 5 1 uncooper ative and r elig iously preoc cupied be havior.” Dr. Dopkin a lso certifie d that Plaintiff was 2 furnished a

“Notice of Status and Rights” f orm. The f

orm stated: “Within 48 hours of the time of 3 your admission, you will be examined by another phy sician . . . . If

heor sh ec on fir ms thefir st 4 ph y sic ian ’s fin dings , y ou ma

ythe n b ek

e pt i n th eho sp ita l fo r a pe rio d o f up to 1 5 d

ay s . . . . 5 Duri ngthi s 1 5 d a

y pe ri od you may be re le a se d, c onve rt e d to inv olu nta ry status , o r a sk e d to 6 re ma in a s a

vo luntary

or inf or ma l patie nt” (e mph a sis a dd e d) . T he ne xt mor nin g , D e fe nd ant7 Appellee Dr. Claudia I ordac he examined Plaintiff and conf irmed Dr. D opkin’s finding s. 8 Plaintiff was then he ld at Elmhurst for two we eks and w as re turned to the F amily Court 9 on No ve mbe r 2 3, 20 05 . A t th e he ari ngtha t f oll ow e d, the F amil y

Court jud g e no te d, a

pp are ntl y 10 confirmingthe seriousne ss of Plaintiff’s condition, that “the situation in the waitingroom” two 11 wee ks ear lier had be en “unte nable a nd a sec urity

risk.” The court a dded that the hospital has the 12 privileg e to adva

nce a rema nded subjec t’s rele ase at any time, and often doe s so, but did not s eek 13 to exercise that privileg e in this case. T he cour t urg ed Plaintiff to follow throug h with therapy
. 14 Plaintiff subsequently brought this action alleg ing that her de tention at Elmhurst violated 15 her r ights unde r the F irst, Fourth, a nd Four teenth Amendme nts, as well as va rious New Y ork 16 State laws. Def

endants moved to dismiss on various g rounds. The district c ourt dismissed the 3 17 action for

lack of subject matter jur isdiction reasoningthat, under the Rooke r-Feldman doctrine, 18 it lacked the pow er to re view state- court judg ments. Mo rri so n v . Ci ty

of N e w York, No. 06 Civ.08
- 12 26
- cv

M o rr i son v. C i t y of N ew Y o rk

6 1 7608 (DC), 2008 WL458728, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. F eb. 20, 2008). The court c onstrued the 2 complaint as a c halleng e to the F amily Court order a

nd reje cted Plaintiff’s c ontention that the 3 challeng e wa s to discretionary actions of the hospital. “ For Morrison to preva il,” the cour t 4 explained, “she must demonstrate that the [Family Court] order

was unlaw ful.” Id. at *5. The 5 court fur

ther re asoned that, beca

use the F amily

Court judge had dire cted that Plaintiff could be 6 re le a se d o nly

by c ourt or de r, and

the c ourt ha d a djo ur

ne d th e pr oc e e din gfo r t

wo we e ks (u

nti l 7 November

23), the Elmhurst Def

endants ha d no choice but to detain her until Novembe r 23, the 8 date whe n she wa s returne d to court. F inally , the cour t added in a f

ootnote that, “eve n assuming 9 the Rooke r-Feldman do c tr ine wa s n ot a ba r . . . , th e ind ivi du a l de fe nd ants wo uld be e nti tle d to 10 qualified immunity .” Id. at *6 n.4. 11 This appea l followed. 12 DI SCU SSIO N 13 “B eca

use Rooke r-Feldman g oes to subject-matter jurisdiction, we re view de novo the 14 district court’s a

pplication of the doc trine.” Hoblock v . Albany County Bd. of Elections , 422 F.3d 15 77 , 8 3 ( 2d

Cir . 2 00 5) . “ [W]e r e vie w f a c tua l f ind ing s f or c le ar e rr or

and le g a l c on c lus ion s de 16 novo .” Morrison v. Nat’l Australi a Bank Ltd. , 547 F.3d 167, 170 ( 2d Cir. 2008) (interna l 17 quotation marks omitted). 18 Pla int if

f c onte nd s, a s sh e did

in t he dis tr ic t c ourt , th at he r c ha lle ng e is n ot t o th e F amil y 19 Court order, but to the Elmhurst doctors’ deter mination that she was dang erous a nd to the08
- 12 26
- cv

M o rr i son v. C i t y of N ew Y o rk

7 1 resultingdecision to continue he r dete ntion. She contends the doctors w ere not compelled by the 2 Family

Court order e ither to find her dang erous or

to keep he r in custody

for two we eks. 3 Acc ording ly , she ar gues, the district cour t erre d in construingher c omplaint as an attac k on the 4 F amil y

Court or de r ( or an a c tio n ma

nd ate d b y tha t or de r) and

c on se qu e ntl y

dis mis sin ghe r s uit 5 under Rooke r-Feldman . The De fenda nts contend her

challeng e to the duration of her de tention 6 can be only

to the Family

Court order be cause that order require d her de tention until t he date on 7 which she w as in fac t relea sed. The D efe ndants argue ac cording ly that her c halleng e is one the 8 inferior

fede ral c ourts have no pow er to e ntertain. 9 I. Rooker-Feldm an Do c tr ine 10 The Rooke r-Feldman doctrine pr ovides that, in most circumstance s, the lower f eder al 11 courts do not have subject matter jur isdiction to review fina l judgments of state cour ts. 12 See Feldman , 4 60 U. S. at 48 2- 83 ; Rooke r , 263 U.S. at 414-16. In 2005, the Supreme Court 13 clar ified the scope of the doc trine, explaining that it was “ confine d” to “c ases br oug ht bystate14 court loser s complainingof injuries ca used by state cour

t judgments re ndere d befor e the district 15 c ourt

pr oc e e din g s c omm e nc e d a nd inv iti ngdis tr ic t c ourt

re vie w a nd re je c tio n o f t

ho se 16 judgme nts.” Exx on Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp. , 5 4 4 U
. S
. 2 8 0 , 2 8 4 ( 2 0 0 5 )
. In 17 Hoblock v . Albany County Board of Elections , w e no te d th at Ex x on -M ob il “par ed bac k the 18 Rooke r-Feldman doctrine to its core .” Hoblock, 4 22 F .3 d at 85 . We int e rp re te d th e Sup re me 19 Court’s opinion to specify four r equire ments that must be met for Rooke r-Feldman t o a p p l y:08
- 12 26
- cv

M o rr i son v. C i t y of N ew Y o rk

8 1 First, the f eder al-c ourt plaintiff must have lost in state cour t. 2 Second, the plaintiff must “c omplain[ ] of injuries caused by [a] 3 state-c ourt judg ment[.] ” Third, the pla intiff must “invit[ e] district 4 court re view and r ejec tion of [t hat] judgment[ ] .” F ourth, the 5 state-c ourt judg ment must have bee n “re ndere d befor e the district 6 court proc eeding s commence d”—i.e., Rooke r-Feldman has no 7 a

pp lic atio n to fe de ra l- c ourt su its pr oc e e din gin p ara lle l w ith 8 on g oin gstate -c ourt lit ig atio n. Th e fi rs t and

fo ur th o f t he se 9 require ments may be loosely

termed pr ocedur al; the sec ond and 10 third may be ter med substantive. 11 Id. (a l t er at i o n s i no ri gi n al ) ( fo o tn o t e o m i tt ed ) ( qu o t i n g Ex x on Mo bil , 544 U.S. at 284). 12 Plaintiff does not dispute that she “lost” in the F amily Court when the judg e issued the 13 order

rema nding he r to Elmhurst Hospital, nor that the Fa mily Court order w as issued bef ore she 14 c omm e nc e d h e r s uit in t he Southe rn

Di str ic t of

Ne w Y or k. She a sse rt s, ho we ve r, tha t he r s uit 15 does not “c omplain of injuries ca used by the state c ourt judg ment” and doe s not “invite district 16 court re

jection of that judg ment.” See H oblock, 422 F.3d at 85. Accor dingly , she ar gues, it was 17 not appropriately dismiss ed under Rooke r-Feldman . At least on the pre sent state of the rec ord, 18 we a g ree with her c ontention. 19 The F amily Court’s order

was unc lear . The diff

eringpositions of the parties as to the 20 applicability

of Rooke r-Feldman depend on the ir interpre ting that or der diff ere ntly
. 21 Plaintiff construes the or der a s mandatingthat she be taken to the hospital for e valuation 22 and that she be held by the hospital for two we eks until November 23 in the eve nt she was 23 reasonably found to be dangerous to herse lf or to others. She contends, howe ver, that the order 24 should not be construed to have mandated her detention for two w eeks if, upon e x amination, no08
- 12 26
- cv

M o rr i son v. C i t y of N ew Y o rk

9 1 rea sonable ba sis was found for detainingher. While Plaintiff conce des that the hospital doctors 2 cer

tified a findingof mental illness likely to result in injury

to herself or others, she alleg es in her 3 suit there wa s no rea sonable ba sis for that finding . Be cause there was no re asonable basis for 4 findingsuch mental illness and the c ourt’s adjournme nt of the ca se for two wee ks was pre mised 5 on the expectation of a valid findingof mental illness, Plaintiff contends that the hospital wa s 6 under a

duty to return he r promptly

to court for

rele ase be fore the end of the two-we ek 7 a djo ur

nme nt. 8 Def

endants, in contra st, argue that bec ause the court spec ified, “Court Relea se Only ,” and 9 adjourne d the ca se to Novembe r 23, the hospital doctors we re unde r cour t order to ke ep Plaintiff 10 in custody

for two we eks re g ardle ss of whethe r the hospital examination revea led any basis for 11 her de tention. Defe ndants ac cording ly argue that, bec ause Plaintiff’s suit cha lleng es hertwo12 we e k d e te nti on , a nd that de te nti on

wa s c omp e lle d b y

c ourt or de r, he r s uit

mus t be vie we d a s a 13 challeng e to a state court orde r, which, unde r Rooke r-Feldman , lower f eder al cour

ts may not 14 enter

tain. 15 As betwe en the two c ompeting inter pretations of the ambiguous Family Court order, w e 16 find the Plaintiff’s interpr etation fa r more r easona

ble than the De fenda

nts’. Admittedly , if the 17 c ourt

or de r h a d s pe c if

ie d what D e fe nd ants c onte nd it m e ans – th at th e ho sp ita l w a s o rd e re d to 18 detain Plaintiff for two w eeks r eg ardle ss of whethe r any medical justification wa s found for 19 doing so – D efe ndants would have a strongargument that Plaintiff’s challeng e to her two-we ek 20 detention must be viewe d as a c halleng e to the cour t order that directe d it, and thus barre d by08
- 12 26
- cv

M o rr i son v. C i t y of N ew Y o rk

10 1 Rooke r-Feldman . But the or der did not spec ify that the hospital was to detain he r for two wee ks 2 reg ardle ss of whethe r it found medica l cause to do so. And in our view it is not reasona ble either 3 to g ive it that inte rp re tatio n o r t o a ssume that th e El mhu rs t do c tor s w ou ld h ave so int e rp re te d it , 4 espec ially

in view of (a ) the fa ct that such a n order would have violate d New Y ork law a nd 5 (b ) e vid e nc e that ne ith e r t he jud g e no r t

he do c tor s so un de rs too d it
. 6 The orde r indee d provided, “ Court Release O nly ,” and f urthermor e, adjour

ned the 7 pr oc e e din g“ to 1 1/2 3/2 00 5. ” B ut i t se e ms m os t li ke ly tha t th e c ourt

int e nd e d th e a djo ur

ne d d ate 8 to apply

in the event, c onsidered likely by the cour t, that the hospital would find Plainti ff to be 9 dang erously

mentally ill, and did not int end that she be detained f or two we eks if the hospital 10 found no re asonable basis for de tention. This interpretation is supported both by the g overning 11 law und e r whic h th e or de r w a s e nte re d a nd by the c ourt ’s c omm e nts . T he or de r s pe c if ie d th at it 12 was e ntere d under Me ntal Hyg iene L aw § 9.39( a). That statute specifie s that a hospital may 13 rec eive a

nd reta in a patient alleg ed to have a mental illness for up to f ifteen da y s “only if a staf f 14 phy sician of the hospital upon e x amination of such pe rson finds that such pe rson” ha s “a me ntal 15 illness for which immediate obse rvation, ca re, a nd treatment in a hospital is appropriate a nd 16 which is likely

to result in serious harm to himself or othe rs” a nd “such f

inding is conf

irmed af ter 17 examination by

another phy sician [within forty -eight hours].” N.Y. Mental Hyg . L . § 9.39(a)
. 18 Moreove r, under

Mental Hyg iene L aw § 9.43( a), a judge may

rema nd an individual only

for 19 evaluation, and does not have the authority to order c ontinuing hospital detention in the fa ce of a08
- 12 26
- cv

M o rr i son v. C i t y of N ew Y o rk

N. Y. Me nta l H yg . L . § 9. 43 (a ) s tate s: 4 Whenever

any court of inf

erior or g ener al jurisdiction is informed by ve ri fi e d s tate me nt t

hat a pe rs on is a pp are ntl y me nta lly ill and is c on du c tin ghim se lf

or he rs e lf in a mann e r whic h in

a pe rs on wh o is no t me nta lly

ill wo uld be de e me d d iso rd e rl y

c on du c t or

wh ic h is likely to result in serious harm to himself or he rself, suc h court shall issue a wa

rra nt directingthat such per son be brought before it. I f, wh e n s a id p e rs on

is b ro ught b e fo re the c ourt , it a pp e ars to the cour t, on the basis of evide nce pr esente d to it, that such person has or may

have a mental illness which is likely to result in serious ha rm to h ims e lf

or he rs e lf or oth e rs , th e c ou

rt sh a ll i ssu e a

c ivi l or de r d ir e c tin ghis or

he r r e mov a l to any

ho sp ita l sp e c if

ie d in subdivision (a) of sec tion 9.39 . . . for a de termination by the direc tor of such hospital or pr og ram whe ther such pe rson should be reta ined there in pursuant to such sec tion. 11 1 hospital determination that the patient doe s not meet the cr iteria of § 9.39( a). Acc ording ly , had 4 2 the Fa

mily Court judge intended her order to mean what Defe ndants contend it mea nt, the 3 judge ’s intention would have be en cle arly contra ry to New Yor

k law. 4 The e vidence considere d by the district court fur

ther plac ed in doubt whether the orde r 5 was intende d or under stood to mandate holdingPlaintiff for two we eks re g ardle ss of whethe r any 6 de te nti on

wa s me dic a lly

jus tif ie d. On No ve mbe r 2 3, wh e n Pl a int if f w a s r e tur

ne d to the F amil y 7 Court, the judge , emphasizing the se riousness of Plaintiff ’s c ondition and the court’s pe rce ption 8 of her

need f or thera py , noted that the hospital has the pr ivilege to advanc e re lease and ofte n does 9 so, but did not seek to do so in her ca se. This comment seems to sug g est an e x pectation on the 10 pa

rt of the jud g e that, h a d th e ho sp ita l f ound no pr op e r m e dic a l ba sis to h old Pla int if f, it w ou ld 11 have pr omptly

returne d her to c ourt rec ommending he r re lease , notwithstanding the two w eek08
- 12 26
- cv

M o rr i son v. C i t y of N ew Y o rk

12 1 adjourne d date. Ha d the cour t understood its own order as mandating two we eks’ de tention, 2 reg ardle ss of the hospital’s finding s as to her c ondition, itwould have ma de no sense for the 3 court to infer

that the hospital doctors found he r condition to be ser ious from the fa ct that they 4 he ld h e r f

or the tim e or de re d b y

the c ourt . 5 The hospital documents that we re be fore the district court similarly attest to an 6 understandingon the par t of the hospital staff that Plainti ff would not be de tained for two wee ks 7 unless the medica l findings supporte d such dete ntion. Dr. Dopkin, who first examined Plaintiff 8 and

no te d h is f

ind ingof da ng e ro us me nta l il lne ss, de liv e re d to Pla int if f a no tic e of he r r ights , 9 which stated, “ Wit hin 48 hours of the time of your admission, you will be examined by another 10 phy sician . . . . If he or she c onfirms the first physician’s findings, you may then be ke pt in the 11 ho sp ita l f

or a pe ri od of up to 1 5 d ay s” (e mph a sis a dd e d) . T his ho sp ita l do c ume nt e xplic itl y 12 contra dicted the pr oposition t hat Plaintiff would be deta ined for two w eeks r eg ardle ss of whethe r 13 medical justification wa s found. In addition, it is rea sonable to infer that the doctors at such a 14 mental hea lth facility would have be en we ll awar e that a c ourt order requiringconfine ment 15 reg ardle ss of medica l justi fication would have bee n in violation of the g overninglaw. 16 In short, conce ding that the Family Court order w as on its fac e uncle ar, w e think it far 17 mor e lik e ly

tha t th e or de r w a s b oth

int e nd e d b y

the iss uin gjud g e and

un de rs too d b y

the El mhu

rs t 18 Hospital medical staf f not to u nla wf ull y dir e c t th e ho sp ita l to ho ld P la int if f f or tw o w e e ks e ve n in 19 the abse nce of

any medical justification for

such dete ntion. The more likely meaningof the 20 or de r, bo th a s inte nd e d b y the jud g e and

a s und e rs too d b y

the ho sp ita l, w a s th at Pla int if f w ou ld08
- 12 26
- cv

M o rr i son v. C i t y of N ew Y o rk

Nor is this interpretation inconsistent with t he cour t’s specific ation that Plaintiff be 5 rele ased only

upon court orde r. Ther e wa s a wa rra nt outstanding for

Plaintiff’s arr est. The specific ation that Plaintiff be re lease d only by the cour t and not by

the hospital would have ins ur e d s atis fa c tio n o f t

he wa rr ant. 13 1 be held f

or two we eks, in ac corda

nce w ith New Yor

k law, on ly

if the examination of two doctors 2 found medica l justi fication for such de tention, but that she would otherwise be promptly returne d 3 to court with a re commendation of r elea se. At least abse nt further evidenc e supportingthe 5 4 bizarre a

nd illega l interpretation Defe ndants would have us g ive the orde r, we find no basis for 5 construingthe complaint as a n attack on the Family

Court’s order , rathe r than a n attack on 6 independe nt discretionar y acts a nd decisions of the hospital staff that wer e not compelled by 7 court orde r. On the ba sis of the prese nt rec ord, we conclude the suit was not barr ed by the 8 Rooke r-Feldman doctrine. 9 II. Qua lifie d Im m unity a nd F ail ur e to St at e a C lai m 10 The individual Def endants c ontend that, eve n if Rooke r-Feldman do e s n ot a pp ly , th e su it 11 ag ainst them must be dismi ssed bec ause the district court found they are entitled to qualified 12 immunit y . The De fenda nts also contend the suit should be dismissed under Rule 12(b) (6), F ed. 13 R. Civ. P ., for f

ailure to state a

claim upon which r elief ma y be grante d. 14 The district cour t indeed stated in a

footnote that “e ven assumingthe Rooke r-Feldman 15 do c tr ine wa s n ot a ba r t o M or ri so n’ s c la ims , th e ind ivi du a l de fe nd ants wo uld be e nti tle d to 16 qualified immunity .” Morrison , 2008 WL458728, at *6 n.4. The c ourt, howeve r, g ave no 17 explanation and did not base its judgment on qua lified immunit y . It is at least possible that the08
- 12 26
- cv

M o rr i son v. C i t y of N ew Y o rk

14 1 court’s vie w of the a pplicability

of qualified immunity

was ba sed on its interpretation of the 2 F amil y

Court ’s or de r, wh ic h w e have re je c te d. As fo r R

ule 12 (b )( 6) , th e c ourt

did no t a dd re ss 3 the issue. 4 In th e a

bs e nc e of any e xplanatio n o f t

he c ourt ’s ob se rv atio n a

bo ut q ua lif ie d immun ity 5 and any

considera

tion by the district court of the leg al suffic iency of the c omplaint, we will not 6 addre ss those issues but will l eave them to be addr essed in the f irst instance by

the district court 7 upon rema

nd if the De fenda

nts should move for re lief on those base s. See F ord v. Rey nolds , 316 8 F .3 d 3 51 , 3 55 -5 6 ( 2d Cir . 2 00 3) (v a c atin gg ra

nt o f s umm ary

jud g me nt o n s ov e re ign immun ity 9 g ro un ds and

re mand ingfo r c on sid e ratio n o f whe the r q ua lif ie d immun ity

ba rr e d s uit a g a ins t 10 c oll e g e of

fi c ia ls whe re qu a lif

ie d immun ity

wa s b ri e fe d b ut n ot a dd

re sse d b y dis tr ic t c ourt ); c

f. 11 Fran c is v . Co ug

hli n , 849 F.2d 778, 780 ( 2d Cir. 1988) (re mandingfor c onsideration of qua lified 12 immunit y

wher e the district cour

t denied def

endants’ motion to dismiss for f ailure to state a 13 claim and de nied qualified immunity without ex planation). 14 III. Claims A gainst the City of New York 15 Plaintiff’s claims ag ainst the City of Ne w York a

re de rived fr om her c laims ag ainst the 16 court off

icer s who initially

detained he r and tra

nsported her

to Elmhurst. The other c laims do not 17 implicate the City beca use Elmhurst Hospital and its doctors and e mploy ees a re pa rt of the 18 Hea lth and Hospitals Corporation, “a public benef

it corporation independent of the City of Ne w 19 York.” DeJ

esus v. N.Y

.C. Health &Hosps. Corp. , 309 A.D.2d 729, 730 (N .Y. App. Div. 2d 20 Dep’ t 2003). Since Plaintiff has aba ndoned her

claims ag ainst the court of fice rs, Plaintiff has no08
- 12 26
- cv

M o rr i son v. C i t y of N ew Y o rk

15 1 claim ag ainst the City . We theref ore a ffirm the district c ourt’s dismissal of the claims ag ainst the 2 City

of Ne w York. 3 CO NC LU SION 4 For

the fore g oing r easons, we AFF I RM the judgment dismissing the c laims ag ainst the 5 City

a nd the c ourt of fi c e r d e fe nd ants , a

nd VA CA TE the jud g me nt d ism iss ingthe c la ims a g a ins t 6 the El mhu

rs t de fe nd ants . RE MA

ND ED fo r f

ur the r p ro c e e din g s.