O'Connor v. Donaldson
422 U.S. 563 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state cannot constitutionally confine a non-dangerous individual who is capable of surviving safely in freedom by themselves or with the help of willing and responsible family members or friends, even if that individual is diagnosed with a mental illness.
Facts:
- In 1957, Kenneth Donaldson's father initiated his civil commitment to the Florida State Hospital at Chattahoochee, believing his son suffered from 'delusions.'
- A Florida county judge found Donaldson to be suffering from 'paranoid schizophrenia' and committed him for 'care, maintenance, and treatment,' where he remained for nearly 15 years.
- Dr. J. B. O'Connor was the hospital's superintendent for most of Donaldson's confinement.
- During his confinement, there was no evidence that Donaldson was dangerous to himself or others; O'Connor himself conceded he had no knowledge of Donaldson ever committing a dangerous act.
- Donaldson received only custodial care, described by O'Connor as 'milieu therapy,' which consisted of being kept in a large room with other patients without a program designed to alleviate or cure his supposed illness.
- On multiple occasions, responsible third parties, including a halfway house (Helping Hands, Inc.) and a longtime family friend (John Lembcke), offered to take custody of and care for Donaldson.
- O'Connor refused all offers of release, at one point creating a rule that Donaldson could only be released to his elderly and infirm parents, whom O'Connor knew could not care for him.
- Immediately after he was finally released, Donaldson secured a responsible job in hotel administration.
Procedural Posture:
- Kenneth Donaldson filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Dr. J. B. O'Connor and other staff in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida.
- After a four-day trial, the jury found in favor of Donaldson and awarded him compensatory and punitive damages.
- O'Connor, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's judgment, holding that involuntarily committed persons have a constitutional right to treatment.
- O'Connor, as petitioner, successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state violate the constitutional right to liberty by involuntarily confining a mentally ill person who is not dangerous to themselves or others, is capable of surviving safely in the community, and is not receiving treatment for their illness?
Opinions:
Majority - Stewart, J.
Yes, a state violates the constitutional right to liberty by confining a non-dangerous mentally ill individual capable of surviving safely in freedom. The Court held that a finding of 'mental illness' alone cannot justify a state's locking a person up against their will indefinitely in simple custodial confinement. The state has no constitutional basis to confine such persons if they are dangerous to no one and can live safely in freedom. The Court found constitutionally inadequate such justifications as providing a higher standard of living than the person might have in the community or shielding the public from eccentric individuals. Since the jury found, based on ample evidence, that Donaldson was not dangerous, was capable of surviving safely in the community, and was not receiving treatment, his continued confinement by O'Connor, as an agent of the state, was a violation of his constitutional right to liberty. The case was vacated and remanded on the separate issue of O'Connor's qualified immunity for the lower court to reconsider in light of the standard set in Wood v. Strickland.
Concurring - Burger, C.J.
Yes, the judgment of the court is correct. This opinion emphasizes that the Court's holding explicitly does not create a general constitutional 'right to treatment' for all involuntarily committed patients, a broad conclusion reached by the Court of Appeals. The historical basis of state power in this area, including the parens patriae power, has included custodial care for those unable to function in society, even without a 'cure.' The concurring opinion also rejects the 'quid pro quo' theory, which suggests that the state can bypass certain due process safeguards in civil commitment in exchange for providing treatment. Additionally, on the question of O'Connor's immunity, the lower court should consider evidence that Donaldson refused treatment and that O'Connor may have reasonably relied on repeated state court denials of Donaldson's petitions for release.
Analysis:
This landmark decision established a constitutional floor for civil commitment, fundamentally shifting the balance between state power and individual liberty. The Court clarified that a diagnosis of mental illness is not, by itself, a sufficient basis for depriving a person of their freedom. By requiring a finding of dangerousness or an inability to survive safely in the community, the ruling curtailed the state's broad authority to institutionalize individuals based on paternalistic or public-intolerance grounds. The decision deliberately avoided the broader, more complex question of a constitutional 'right to treatment,' leaving that issue for future litigation but creating a clear, liberty-focused standard for confinement itself.
Unlock the full brief for O'Connor v. Donaldson