Bartlett v. Duty, Civ. A. No. 8140.
Decision Date | 23 June 1959 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 8140. |
Citation | 174 F. Supp. 94 |
Parties | Kelsey D. BARTLETT, Plaintiff, v. Dr. Joseph DUTY, Dr. J. M. Garland, Dr. James G. Bond, Dr. Miriam Bell, all of Toledo State Hospital, Dr. Charles Bohnengel, Dr. J. M. Kenyon, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio |
Kelsey D. Bartlett, in pro. per.
Spengler, Nathanson, Hebenstreit & Heyman, Otto H. Spengler, Dan H. McCullough, Toledo, Ohio, for Dr. Kenyon.
Mark McElroy, Atty. Gen., William M. Vance, Asst. Atty. Gen., for Drs. Duty, Garland, Bond and Bell.
Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, Charles W. Peckinpaugh, Jr., John J. Barone, Toledo, Ohio, for Dr. Bohnengel.
The complaint charges the defendants with conspiracy in causing plaintiff to be falsely arrested and maliciously prosecuted in proceedings instituted in the Probate Court of Lucas County, whereby he was detained in a mental institution for a period of six days under a warrant of detention issued by said Court.
Plaintiff claims that his constitutional rights were invaded and brings this action under the Civil Rights Act. 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 1983, 1985 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343.
The defendants are the Superintendent of Toledo State Hospital, Toledo, Ohio, which was the institution designated by the Probate Court in the warrant of detention, three staff physicians of the hospital and two private physicians, who were medical witnesses appointed by the Probate Court to examine plaintiff.
Damages are sought in the amount of $100,000,000 and also a permanent injunction ordering the defendants "to cease all interest in plaintiff's `mental health' and restraining them from instituting any such similar actions as taken herein."
The defendants have filed motions to dismiss on the ground that the complaint does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted and that the Court does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action.
The plaintiff and all the defendants are residents of the State of Ohio.
The complaint has attached to it a copy of the order of the Probate Court. Briefs were filed by all the parties which contain statements of fact as well as arguments on the legal questions. Attached to plaintiff's brief is a copy of the opinion of the Court of Appeals of Marion County, Ohio, in a previous probate proceeding involving plaintiff. The Court will, therefore, treat the motions to dismiss as motions for summary judgment.
In the previous probate proceeding, above referred to, plaintiff's wife had filed in the Probate Court of Marion County, Ohio, an affidavit charging plaintiff with mental illness; thereafter, on April 15, 1954, he was committed to Columbus Receiving Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, as a mental incompetent by said Probate Court; thereafter he was transferred to Toledo State Hospital where he remained until April 12, 1955, when he was permitted to leave and go home on a trial visit; on June 23, 1955, he was found mentally competent by the same court which committed him and was ordered discharged.
Following his release, plaintiff filed a motion in the Probate Court of Marion County to set aside the order finding that he was an incompetent on the ground that the Ohio statutes relating to notice of the hearing had not been complied with. The Probate Court denied the motion, but on appeal to the Court of Appeals of Marion County, Ohio, the judgment of the Probate Court was reversed and the order adjudging plaintiff incompetent was vacated.
Plaintiff then filed an action in this Court, being Civil Action No. 7547 for damages in the amount of $2,500,000 against the Sheriff of Marion County, a physician from Marion, Ohio, five other physicians connected with Columbus Receiving Hospital, and Toledo State Hospital claiming that he had been deprived of his civil rights by said defendants in his commitment in 1954. An injunction was prayed for similar to the prayer in the case at bar.
The defendants in said prior action filed motions to dismiss which were sustained by this Court. Thereafter, on appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed. Bartlett v. Weimer, 6 Cir., 244 F.2d 955, certiorari denied 355 U.S. 858, 78 S.Ct. 87, 2 L.Ed.2d 65.
Plaintiff has since been admitted to the Bar and filed the present action "in propria personae."
The brief of plaintiff filed in the present action contained innuendos concerning the Judge of this Court who heard the motions to dismiss in the prior case, which caused him to disqualify himself from hearing the present motions to dismiss. The fact that the Court of Appeals of this Circuit had affirmed the decision of this Court and certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court of the United States did not deter the plaintiff from making the statements concerning the Judge, who merely performed his duty as he saw it.
Defendants Dr. Joseph Duty and Dr. J. M. Garland are staff members at the Toledo State Hospital, of which defendant Dr. Miriam Bell is the superintendent.
The complaint in the present case does not specifically state in what manner these defendants acted against the plaintiff, only charging them generally as being parties to the over-all conspiracy. This broad allegation is virtually a conclusion of law, in that no operative facts are pleaded showing in what manner these three physicians acted to deprive plaintiff of his constitutional rights. They did not institute the proceedings by which plaintiff was detained. Their only apparent possible connection with this controversy was the performance of their duties on the staff of the Toledo State Hospital where plaintiff was detained.
The evidence discloses that plaintiff was placed in the mental hospital by order of the Probate Court of Lucas County, pursuant to Ohio Rev.Code, §§ 5123.18 and 5123.19. The superintendent of a state mental hospital has the duty to receive and retain a patient under a warrant of commitment issued by the Probate Court. Ohio Rev.Code, § 5123.03 and § 5123.19. The members of the hospital staff are likewise required to perform their respective duties. No irregularity in the warrant of detention or other procedural defect in the proceedings in the Probate Court is alleged in the complaint.
The decision in Kenney v. Hatfield, D. C.Mich., 132 F.Supp. 814, affirmed 6 Cir., 1956, 232 F.2d 288, is controlling here. Faced with very similar facts, the Court stated:
132 F.Supp. at page 818.
On the authority of the Kenney case no claim upon which relief may be granted is stated against these three defendants, and the complaint must be dismissed as to them. Accord: Bartlett v. Weimer, 6 Cir., 1957, 244 F.2d 955.
Defendants Dr. Charles...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Taylor v. Nichols
...1209 (9th Cir. 1974); McShane v. Moldovan, 172 F.2d 1016 (6th Cir. 1949); Curry v. Ragan, 257 F.2d 449 (5th Cir. 1958); Bartlett v. Duty, 174 F.Supp. 94 (N.D.Ohio 1959); Graves v. City of Bolivar, 154 F.Supp. 625 (W.D.Mo.1957); Hahn v. Sargent, 388 F.Supp. 445 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that t......
-
Williams v. Rappeport
...denied, 361 U.S. 938, 80 S.Ct. 380, 4 L.Ed.2d 358 (1960); Phillips v. Singletary, 350 F.Supp. 297, 300 (D.S.C.1972); Bartlett v. Duty, 174 F.Supp. 94, 97-98 (N.D.Ohio 1959). Drs. Rappeport and Dvoskin and Judge North, the presiding judge in the state court custody proceedings, have stated i......
-
Ghayoumi v. McMillan, No. M2005-00267-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. App. 7/14/2006)
...(therapists in child sexual abuse case); Phillips v. Singletary, 350 F.Supp. 297, 300 (D.S.C.1972) (physician); Bartlett v. Duty, 174 F.Supp. 94, 97-98 (N.D.Ohio 1959) (physician). These courts recognized that "[p]sychologists and other experts would be reluctant to accept court appointment......
-
LaLonde v. Eissner
...(therapists in child sexual abuse case); Phillips v. Singletary, 350 F.Supp. 297, 300 (D.S.C.1972) (physician); Bartlett v. Duty, 174 F.Supp. 94, 97-98 (N.D.Ohio 1959) (physician). These courts recognized that "[p]sychologists and other experts would be reluctant to accept court appointment......