Nerad v. Regions Hospital

Background

Nerad alleged that, in 2006, Oakdale police handcuffed her and took her to Regions Hospital, where she was placed on a 72-hour psychiatric hold. She alleged that Dr. Barclay Jones, the psychiatrist who treated her, did not visit or listen to her, used a flawed diagnosis to support her commitment, and was motivated by personal dislike. She also alleged that Regions administered neuroleptic medication without her consent and without a court order. The opinion states that records showed the latter allegation was contrary to the record.

A civil-commitment petition was initiated in Ramsey County Probate Court. The court ordered Nerad committed and treated with neuroleptic medication in January 2007. The probate court later denied a request for rehearing. In 2022, a Ramsey County probate judge vacated the commitment and medication orders and dismissed the 2006 petition, finding that Nerad’s prior attorneys had provided ineffective representation and that the evidence at the 2006 trial did not support finding that she was a danger to herself and others.

Nerad filed this federal case in 2024 and amended her complaint. She asserted wrongful confinement and invasion of privacy claims based on the alleged medication administration, invoking the Fourteenth Amendment. She sought damages and injunctive relief against Regions and Dr. Jones, Ramsey County, Washington County and Charles Burfeind, and the City of Oakdale and Tom Higgins. The motions addressed in this order were filed by Regions, Dr. Jones, and Ramsey County.

Legal standard

The court applied Rule 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not allege enough plausible facts to support a legal claim. At this stage, the court accepted plausible factual allegations as true and viewed them favorably to Nerad, but it did not accept merely conclusory statements.

Claims against Regions Hospital and Dr. Jones

Nerad sought to bring Fourteenth Amendment claims through 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights law that permits claims against persons acting under color of state law. Because Regions and Dr. Jones are private defendants, Nerad needed to plausibly allege that they acted as state actors. The court explained that this can occur in limited circumstances, such as when a private entity performs an exclusively governmental function, is compelled by the government to act, or acts jointly with the government. The court also stated that a plaintiff generally must allege a mutual understanding or meeting of the minds between the private party and the state actor.

The court held that Nerad alleged no facts suggesting a mutual understanding between Regions or Dr. Jones and the government. It also found no allegations that they performed a function traditionally reserved for a public entity or acted jointly with the state. The court therefore ruled that her claims against Regions and Dr. Jones failed as a matter of law. Because it dismissed those claims on that threshold ground, it did not address the defendants’ additional arguments concerning the statute of limitations, an improper collateral attack on the commitment orders, claim preclusion, or immunity under Minnesota law.

Claim against Ramsey County

Under § 1983, a municipality may be liable only when its own policy, custom, or deliberately indifferent failure to train or supervise causes a constitutional violation. A municipality is not automatically liable for its employees’ actions.

The court found that Nerad’s amended complaint did not allege a Ramsey County policy, custom, or deliberate indifference. The court also rejected her argument that Ramsey County was liable for actions by participants in the state-court commitment proceedings. The court stated that the county did not appoint her attorney, judges are state rather than county employees, appointed or retained counsel generally does not act under color of state law when representing a client, and a prosecutor’s conduct in preparing a commitment petition is protected by immunity. The court therefore granted Ramsey County’s motion.

The court also noted that Nerad attempted to raise new Fifth and Sixth Amendment claims in her opposition brief. It stated that new claims cannot be raised in a memorandum instead of the complaint.

Disposition

The court ordered that the amended motions to dismiss were GRANTED. It ordered that Nerad’s claims against Regions Hospital, Dr. Jones, and Ramsey County were DISMISSED with prejudice, because repleading would not cure the legal deficiencies identified by the court. The order did not state a disposition in this opinion for Nerad’s claims against the other named defendants.