Opinion ID: 3014069
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Covell v. Smith, 1996 WL 750033

Text: (E.D.Pa. Dec. 30 1996); Luna v. Zandt, Benn argues that MCES and its 554 F.Supp. 68, 76 (S.D.Tex. 1982). doctors violated procedural due process by failing to comply with the MHPA and by Benn’s case clearly presented an failing to grant him a hearing before he emergency situation. Both his calls to the was involuntarily confined. This argument Horsham clinic and his note at the bottom 10 of his Contract for Safety suggested to the it may fairly be said to shock the doctors that Benn was highly unstable. contemporary conscience.” County of Furthermore, he was committed for a Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 847, “short period of time” and was released fn. 8 (1998). Whether an incident “shocks upon Dr. M ukerjee’s evaluation that he the conscience” is a matter of law for the was no longer suicidal. While committed, courts to decide, see Rochin v. California, Benn was constantly evaluated by the 342 U.S. 165, 172 (1952), and we have MCES physicia ns. Under these pr e viously he ld that involun ta ry circumstances, we hold that the defendants commitment under the MHPA does not in did not violate Benn’s rights by not itself violate substantive due process. See granting him a hearing before he was Doby v. DeCrescenzo, 171 F.3d at 871 n. committed. 4 (“[T]he MHPA authorizes seizures that are ‘reasonable’ under the Fourth Third, we see no evidentiary basis Amendment [and so] the MHPA meets the in the record for Benn’s claim that MCES rationality test imposed by substantive due maintains a policy that denied him his due process analysis.”) process rights. On the contrary, MCES guidelines track the MHPA, which does In this case, none of the specific not deny due process. See Monell v. conduct that Benn alleges shocks the Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. conscience. First, Benn’s complaints 658, 694 (1978). In sum, we hold that about Drs. Zerby or Mukerjee are Benn’s procedural due process rights were insufficient. Benn claims that Drs. Zerby not violated. a n d M u k e r j e e e x h i b i te d “ t o t a l incompetenc[e] . . . . [by failing] to