Opinion ID: 201611
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: State Compulsion Test

Text: Here, there can be no finding of state action under the state compulsion test, as Estades failed to allege facts that would support a finding that the state coerced or encouraged Appellees to pursue or otherwise participate in her involuntary commitment. To be sure, Estades alleged that Appellees acted in accordance with the procedures outlined in the state statutory scheme established to govern involuntary commitment. See 24 P.R. Laws Ann. § 6001 et seq. However, that scheme does not compel or encourage involuntary commitment.12 Rather, it merely provides a mechanism through which 11 Although Estades did not clearly articulate an argument under the state compulsion test on appeal, Appellees addressed the issue and, for the sake of completeness, so do we. 12 Although 24 P.R. Laws Ann. § 6001 provides that [e]very person over 18 years of age who is subject to involuntary admission and immediate hospitalization must be admitted to a mental health facility according to the provisions of this code (emphasis added), a review of the entire commitment scheme reveals that it gives considerable discretion to private parties. Before a court can order involuntary commitment, it must be presented with a -11- private parties can, in their discretion, pursue such commitment. Thus, that allegation does not support a finding of state action. See Barrios-Velazquez v. Asociacion de Empleados del Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico, 84 F.3d 487, 493 (1st Cir. 1996); see also Harvey, 949 F.2d at 1131 ([Appellant] cannot seriously allege that the relevant provisions of the [statutory scheme] were enacted because the state wants to encourage commitments . . . . (internal quotation marks omitted)). Estades also alleged that a state instrumentality was charged with implementing the health insurance system under which Appellees acted and that a state court was involved in her commitment. Still, she did not allege that the instrumentality or court coerced or encouraged Appellees to act in connection with her commitment. Therefore, those allegations also fail to support a finding of state action. petition for such commitment by any person 18 years old or over, id. § 6002(a), and a certificate from a psychiatrist indicating that the individual in question is subject to . . . and needs . . . admission, id. § 6003. Significantly, even [w]hen a person is subject to involuntary admission and in such a condition that immediate hospitalization is necessary, the scheme merely provides that any person 18 years old or over may file [the required] petition in court. Id. § 6002(a) (emphasis added). Moreover, the scheme does not coerce or encourage psychiatrists to issue the aforementioned certificates or hospitals (or their employees) to pursue or otherwise participate in an involuntary commitment. Cf. S.P. v. City of Takoma Park, 134 F.3d 260, 268 (4th Cir. 1998) (We conclude . . . that the statutory scheme, when viewed as a whole, is more permissive than mandatory, and that it grants private physicians complete medical discretion in determining whether an individual should be involuntarily committed.). -12-