Opinion ID: 2976216
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Alleged Substantive Due Process Violation

Text: Simon also claims that Officer Cook made false statements to the staff at ESH and that such conduct violated Simon’s right to substantive due process. According to Simon, Dr. Goldstein showed Cook’s handwritten statement to Simon, and the “statement falsely asserted that Simon had been a patient at ESH, had been diagnosed as mentally ill[,] and was not taking his prescribed medication.” Simon acknowledges in his brief that he must show conduct that “shocks the conscience” in order to prevail on his substantive due process claim. See United States v. Budd, 496 F.3d 517, 529 (6th Cir. 2007). To shock the conscience, conduct must have been “so brutal and offensive that it did not comport with traditional ideas of fair play and decency.” Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U.S. 432, 435 (1957) (quoted in County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 847 (1998)). In this case, Simon cannot demonstrate any “conscience-shocking” conduct. Dr. Goldstein noted in Simon’s admission history that the written citation indicated that Simon had stated that he had been to ESH once before but that he didn’t have mental problems. Goldstein also noted that Simon had told ESH staff that he had been to ESH one time before. Simon offered no evidence that Officer Cook made false statements regarding his mental illness or failure to take medications. Goldstein’s report indicates that Simon himself may have said he previously had been treated at ESH. Even if Officer Cook had made false statements as Simon alleges, Dr. Goldstein made her - 14 - Simon v. Cook, et al. No. 06-6514 own independent evaluation of Simon. Morever, the alleged false statements in this case are not so egregious as to “shock the conscience.” Since Officer Cook did not violate Simon’s constitutional rights, our inquiry is at an end. We hold that Cook is entitled to qualified immunity.