Spillard v. Hoffman
- Jon Tigar
- 4:19-cv-01407
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Spillard v. Ivers, Judge Tigar vacated the judgment, reopened the case, and ordered briefing on Spillard’s claim that medication was given without consent.
Everett L. Spillard and the defendants, Iver Lien and Michael Burleson. The order reopens the action and requires further litigation of Spillard’s Fourteenth Amendment medication claim.
What happened
Everett L. Spillard sued Nurse Ivers and other defendants under a federal civil-rights law. He alleged that medical providers gave him nortriptyline without his knowledge and failed to provide metformin for diabetes. The court had previously entered judgment for the defendants.
The appeals court later ruled that the defendants could not use a legal protection called qualified immunity because they were privately employed medical providers. It also determined that factual and legal questions remained about whether giving Spillard nortriptyline was medically appropriate, justified, and unwanted.
In Spillard v. Ivers, Judge Tigar vacated the 2021 judgment and the part of the earlier order granting summary judgment to the defendants on the medication claim. The court reopened the case, reopened discovery, and set deadlines for a new dispositive motion and briefing; the diabetes-related claim was not identified as remaining.
The detailed version
- Spillard v. Hoffman · No. 4:19-cv-01407
- Jon Tigar
- Jan. 25, 2024
Background
Everett L. Spillard, who was housed at California Medical Facility, filed this pro se civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He sued Humboldt County Jail nurse Iver Lien and doctor Michael Burleson. Spillard alleged that:
1. The defendants gave him nortriptyline, a psychiatric medication, without his knowledge, violating his Fourteenth Amendment due-process right to refuse unwanted medical treatment; and 2. During his first month at Humboldt County Jail, the defendants failed to give him metformin for diabetes, violating the Eighth Amendment prohibition against deliberate indifference to an inmate’s serious medical needs.
On December 28, 2020, the court granted summary judgment for the defendants on the deliberate-indifference claim. On September 22, 2021, the court granted summary judgment on the Fourteenth Amendment claim based on qualified immunity and entered judgment for the defendants.
Ninth Circuit Decision
On August 4, 2023, the Ninth Circuit determined that this court erred in granting summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The Ninth Circuit stated that the defendants were privately employed medical providers and therefore could not use qualified immunity. It also rejected the defendants’ alternative grounds for affirming summary judgment.
The Ninth Circuit explained that the due-process rights to be free from unjustified bodily intrusions, refuse unwanted medical treatment, and receive enough information to exercise those rights intelligently are not limited categorically to antipsychotic drugs or to medication given for mental-health reasons. It concluded that factual questions remained about whether Spillard’s use of nortriptyline was involuntary or unwanted and whether the medication was medically appropriate and justified by the circumstances.
Ruling
Following the Ninth Circuit’s order, Judge Jon S. Tigar vacated the September 22, 2021 judgment and vacated the portion of the September 22, 2021 order granting summary judgment for the defendants. The Clerk was directed to reopen the action.
The court identified the remaining claim as whether the defendants’ administration of nortriptyline without Spillard’s consent violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The defendants must file a dispositive motion addressing that claim within 91 days of the order. The motion should also address whether the medication was medically appropriate and justified under Riggins v. Nevada. Spillard’s opposition is due 28 days after the motion is filed, and the defendants’ reply is due 14 days after the opposition. No hearing will be held.
The court also reopened discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. If the defendants believe the case cannot be resolved by summary judgment, they must inform the court before the dispositive-motion deadline.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.