Zinermon v. Burch
1990 U.S. LEXIS 1171, 494 U.S. 113, 108 L. Ed. 2d 100 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state official's failure to provide pre-deprivation procedural safeguards to an individual before depriving them of liberty is not a 'random and unauthorized' act under the Parratt-Hudson doctrine if the deprivation is predictable, pre-deprivation process is possible, and the state has delegated to the official the power to effect the deprivation and the duty to provide the safeguards.
Facts:
- On December 7, 1981, Darrell Burch was found wandering on a Florida highway, appearing hurt, disoriented, and psychotic.
- He was taken to a private mental health facility, Apalachee Community Mental Health Services (ACMHS), where staff noted he was hallucinating and confused.
- While at ACMHS, Burch signed forms consenting to his admission and treatment.
- After three days, ACMHS staff determined Burch needed longer-term stabilization and referred him to the state-run Florida State Hospital (FSH).
- Upon arrival at FSH, Burch signed additional forms for 'voluntary' admission and treatment, which were witnessed by FSH staff members, including petitioner Dr. Zinermon.
- Dr. Zinermon and other staff made notes shortly after his admission describing Burch as confused, disoriented, psychotic, and uncooperative.
- Burch was confined at FSH for five months without a hearing to determine his competency to consent or the necessity of his involuntary confinement.
- Following his release, a state Human Rights Advocacy Committee investigated and concluded that Burch was likely not competent to be signing legal documents at the time of his admission.
Procedural Posture:
- Darrell Burch filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against petitioners in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida.
- Petitioners filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing the Parratt-Hudson doctrine barred the suit because Florida provided adequate post-deprivation tort remedies.
- The District Court, a court of first instance, granted the motion to dismiss.
- Burch, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
- A three-judge panel of the intermediate appellate court affirmed the District Court's dismissal.
- The Court of Appeals then granted a rehearing en banc on its own motion.
- The en banc Eleventh Circuit reversed the District Court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings.
- Petitioners (Zinermon et al.) petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
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 hospital staff's failure to provide procedural safeguards to a mentally incompetent person before admitting him as a 'voluntary' patient constitute a 'random and unauthorized' act for which a post-deprivation tort remedy provides sufficient due process under the Parratt-Hudson doctrine?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Blackmun
No. A state official's failure to provide required procedural safeguards before depriving a person of liberty is not a 'random and unauthorized' act excused by post-deprivation remedies when the state has delegated to that official the power to effect the deprivation and the risk of an erroneous deprivation is foreseeable. The Parratt rule applies only when pre-deprivation process is impossible, but here, the risk that a mentally ill person would be incompetent to consent was foreseeable and a pre-deprivation hearing was possible. The Court reasoned that this case is distinguishable from Parratt and Hudson for three reasons: 1) The deprivation was predictable, as the very nature of mental illness makes it foreseeable that a person needing care might be incapable of giving informed consent, and this error occurs at a specific point—the admissions process. 2) Pre-deprivation process was not impossible; Florida already had an established procedure for involuntary commitment that could have been used. 3) The petitioners' conduct was not 'unauthorized' in the sense used in Parratt, because the State delegated to them the broad power to admit patients and the concomitant duty to initiate procedural safeguards, making their failure an abuse of their official position, not a random act.
Dissenting - Justice O'Connor
Yes. The alleged conduct was a 'random and unauthorized' departure from established state procedure, for which the state's post-deprivation tort remedies provide all the process that is due. Burch's complaint alleges that petitioners willfully and wantonly violated Florida's established procedures, which require informed consent for voluntary admission and provide a process for involuntary commitment. This is precisely the kind of random, unauthorized conduct by a state employee that Parratt and Hudson held could not be predicted or prevented by the state with pre-deprivation procedures. The state cannot foresee when an employee will choose to flout clear rules. The majority's 'delegation of power' rationale blurs the critical line between established state procedure and unauthorized departures from it, improperly expanding § 1983 liability and creating doctrinal confusion.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the scope of the Parratt-Hudson doctrine, which immunizes the state from § 1983 procedural due process claims for 'random and unauthorized' acts of its employees where adequate post-deprivation remedies exist. The Court established that when state officials are delegated broad authority to effect a deprivation of liberty (like civil commitment) and the risk of an erroneous deprivation is foreseeable, their failure to provide safeguards is an abuse of their delegated power, not a random act. This ruling compels states to implement procedural safeguards at predictable points of risk, rather than relying on after-the-fact tort remedies, especially in contexts like mental health where individuals may be unable to protect their own interests.
