## Facts

- Becky S. Moore, a 31-year-old woman with a history of serious mental illness, contacted a counseling center seeking medication to help her sleep.
- Her therapist reported Moore made statements interpreted as suicidal; Moore disputed that she threatened suicide.
- The therapist contacted law enforcement and the hospital; police responded to Moore’s home, spoke with Moore and a coworker, concluded Moore was not a danger, and left.
- Paramedics associated with Wyoming Medical Center later arrived and, following a physician’s instruction to bring Moore to the hospital even against her will, forcibly removed her from her home.
- Moore alleged the responders entered the bathroom, handcuffed her, and dragged her naked to an ambulance.
- Moore was taken to the hospital under Wyoming’s emergency-detention statute, which authorized emergency detention with reasonable cause to believe the person was mentally ill and posed a “substantial probability of physical harm” based on recent threats, attempts, or violent behavior.
- Moore sued the hospital, the physician, and a paramedic/EMT, asserting § 1983 constitutional claims and state tort claims (including false imprisonment and battery/assault), and alleging civil conspiracy.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims.

## Issues

1. Whether Wyoming’s emergency-detention statute, as applied, violated substantive due process by using a “substantial probability of physical harm” standard rather than requiring “imminent” harm.
2. Whether the hospital and its personnel acted under color of state law when executing an emergency mental-health detention, permitting § 1983 liability.
3. Whether private medical defendants were entitled to qualified immunity for actions taken under the emergency-detention statute.
4. Whether disputed facts regarding dangerousness, the basis for detention, and the force used precluded summary judgment on the federal and state claims.
5. Whether Moore produced sufficient evidence of an agreement among defendants to support a civil conspiracy claim.

## Decision

- The court denied summary judgment on all claims except civil conspiracy.
- The court held the emergency-detention statute was constitutional as applied and that due process did not require the state to wait for harm to become imminent where there was a substantial probability of serious physical harm supported by recent threats or attempts.
- The court held the hospital and its personnel acted under color of state law because they performed a public function by executing the state’s emergency mental-health detention process in coordination with state authority.
- The court held the private defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity at the summary-judgment stage.
- The court found genuine disputes of material fact on what Moore said, whether she posed the required risk at the time of seizure, and whether the manner and level of force used were reasonable, requiring jury resolution.
- The court granted summary judgment on the civil conspiracy claim for lack of specific evidence of an agreement to commit unlawful acts.

## Legal Principles

- Emergency detention of a person for mental-health reasons must satisfy substantive due process by requiring mental illness plus a constitutionally adequate dangerousness standard; due process does not invariably require proof of imminent harm.
- A “substantial probability of physical harm” standard, tied to recent threats, attempts, or violent conduct and implemented with statutory safeguards, may satisfy substantive due process in emergency-detention contexts.
- Private entities and individuals may be treated as state actors under § 1983 when they perform a function traditionally associated with the state and operate pursuant to statutory authority in effecting a detention.
- Qualified immunity generally protects governmental officials; private defendants invoking state detention procedures are not automatically entitled to qualified immunity.
- Summary judgment is improper where material disputes exist about the basis for detention and the reasonableness of the seizure and force used.
- Civil conspiracy requires evidence of an agreement to accomplish an unlawful objective (or a lawful objective by unlawful means); coordinated action under a statute, without proof of an unlawful agreement, is insufficient.

## Conclusion

The court allowed Moore’s § 1983 and related tort claims to proceed because material factual disputes existed regarding the grounds for her emergency detention and the force used, while rejecting her substantive due process challenge to the statute and dismissing only the civil conspiracy claim for lack of evidence of an unlawful agreement.


Moore v. Wyoming Med. Ctr., 825 F. Supp. 1531 (D. Wyo. 1993)