Jane Doe v. Rosenberg
Opinion
On May 5,1996, [ Jane ] [ Doe ] was involuntarily committed to the psychiatric ward at Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center. After successfully challenging her confinement pursuant to § 9.31 of New York’s Mental Hygiene Law, she was released on May 16, 1996. She then brought suit alleging, under
The district court, granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, dismissed [ Doe ]s § 1983 claim on the ground that the defendants are not state actors and that they therefore did not act under color of state law.
See [ Doe ] v. Rosenberg,
On the question of whether the defendants acted under color of state law, we affirm for substantially the reasons set forth in the district court’s comprehensive and scholarly opinion. We further conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying [ Doe ] the discovery she sought.
The judgment is therefore affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- [ Jane ] [ DOE ], Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R. ROSENBERG, M.D., Personally, Anne Skomorossky, M.D., Personally, Lorraine Innes, M.D., Personally, Stan Acrow, M.D., Personally, Elizabeth Mirabello, M.D., Personally, Jane Doe, Personally, Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center, Herbert Pardes, in His Official Capacity as Head of the Department of Psychiatry of Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center, Defendants-Appellees
- Cited By
- 35 cases
- Status
- Published