Liu v. Portland State University et al

Filing 192

Opinion and Order: The Court GRANTS Cascadia's Motion for Summary Judgment 162 and DISMISSES with prejudice Plaintiff's claims against Cascadia. Signed on 05/12/2016 by Judge Anna J. Brown. See attached 20 page Opinion and Order for full text. (bb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

HENRY D. LIU,
Plaintiff,

3:14-CV-00908-BR
OPINION AND ORDER

v.
PORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITY, et
al.,
Defendants.

MICAH D. FARGEY
Fargey Law PC
5 Centerpointe Drive, 4•• Floor
Lake Oswego, OR 97035
( 503) 94 6-942 6
Attorneys for Plaintiff

P.K. RUNKLES-PEARSON
SHARAE M. WHEELER
Miller Nash LLP
111 S.W. Fifth Avenue
Suite 3400
Portland, OR 97204
[phone]
Attorneys for Defendants Portland State University,
Jacqueline Balzer, Domanic Thomas, and Joseph Schilling

1 - OPINION AND ORDER

TRACY REEVE
Portland City Attorney
J. SCOTT MOEDE
WADE H. TUCKER
Deputy City Attorneys
1221 S.W. Fourth Avenue, Suite 430
Portland, OR 97204
[phone]
Attorneys for Defendants City of Portland and James
Crooker
KAREN O'KASEY
JASON R. POSS
Hart Wagner LLP
1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205
[phone]
Attorneys, for Defendant Oregon Health
University

&

Sciences

DUNCAN K. FOBES
Patterson Buchanan Fobes & Leitch
2112 Third Avenue, Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98121
[phone]
Attorneys for Defendant Cascadia Behavioral Healthcare

BROWN, Judge.
This matter c\'>mes before the Court on the Renewed Motion
(#162) for Summary Judgment of Defendant Cascadia Behavioral
Healthcare, Inc.

For· the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS

Cascadia's Motion and DISMISSES with prejudice Plaintiff's claims
against Cascadia.

2 - OPINION AND ORDER

BACKGROUND

The following facts are taken from the Agreed Facts in the
parties'

Pretrial Order and the parties' materials related to

Cascadia's Motion for Summary Judgment and are undisputed unless
otherwise noted.
Plaintiff Henry D. Liu was enrolled as a graduate student in
the Conflict Resolution Program at Portland State University
(PSU} from the beginning of the fall term in 2011 through
June 21, 2012.
On April 20, 2012, another graduate student in the Conflict
Resolution Program told PSU Professor Rachel Cunliffe that
Plaintiff had made statements about th.e .. faculty that the student
found threatening.

At some point the student also reported her

conversation with Plaintiff to PSU Campus Public Safety (CPS}
Officer Sergeant Joseph Schilling.

The student specifically

advised Sergeant Schilling that she was a classmate of Plaintiff
and that Plaintiff told the student during a break from class on
April 12, 2012, that (1) Plaintiff "had issues" with the Conflict
Resolution Program and its Director, Professor Robert Gould,
because of an unsatisfactory grade that he had received after he
caused another student to cry in class;

(2) he "had issues"

because a fellow student had allegedly used the word "chink"
while speaking with him; and (3) he made statements that made the
student believe he was angry because he felt faculty members were

3 - OPINION AND ORDER

treating him differently due to his ethnicity.

The student also

advised Sergeant Schilling that Plaintiff told her after class on
April 12, 2012, that he had a back or spinal injury and was
taking a large amount of pain medication that often interfered
with his thinking and daily activity.

The student suggested

alternatives such as yoga and meditation to relieve stress, but
Plaintiff stated:

"[T]his situation is really pushing me over

the edge and we know what happens when students are pushed over
the edge."

The student emailed Plaintiff shortly after April 12,

2012, and Plaintiff responded he was very stressed, upset, and
unable to sleep and was "becoming aware of repressed emotions of
anger."

The student told Sergeant Schilling that the student

talked to Plaintiff after class on April 19, 2012, about
Professor Gould, and Plaintiff became agitated, raised his voice,
used profanity, and stated:
his ass."

"I'm about ready to stick a .45 in

Plaintiff then lowered his voice and apologized, but

he continued to express frustration and stated he was unable to
sleep.

He also repeated he was taking a lot of pain medication,

but it was not helping his pain level.

Plaintiff added:

"Professor Stan Sitnick giving him a [bad] grade did not help
.,

'he could get shot.'"

Plaintiff told the student that he

was noticing he had "a lot of hatred."

The student became

alarmed, changed the subject, and asked Plaintiff if he had
weekend plans.

Plaintiff responded he planned to go to "target

4 - OPINION AND ORDER

practice on Sunday."

Sergeant Schilling believed the student's

statements were credible and felt concerned.
Sergeant Schilling ascertained Plaintiff was living off of
the PSU campus.

Accordingly, Sergeant Schilling contacted the

Portland Police Bureau and shared with Portland Police Officer
James Crooker the student's statements about Plaintiff.
Officer Crooker contacted Cascadia's Project Respond Team
and asked them to assist in a visit to Plaintiff's residence for
a mental-health evaluation and possible Director's Hold pursuant
to former Oregon Revised Statute

§

426.233.

On April 20, 2012, Officer Crooker, Portland Police Officer
Jason Walters, Sergeant Schilling, CPS Officer David Baker, and
Cascadia Project Respond personnel Rachel Phariss and Sarah
Schellhorn went to Plaintiff's residence to address what they
considered to be Plaintiff's possible threat to the community.
Phariss and Schellhorn waited around the corner from Plaintiff's
apartment while Officers knocked on Plaintiff's door.
Officer Crooker testifies in his Declaration that Plaintiff
"appeared dazed and confused and was unable to communicate
clearly" when he answered the door.
~

8.

Deel. of James Crooker at

Plaintiff permitted the officers to enter his apartment.

Officer Crooker asked Plaintiff if there were any firearms in his
apartment, and Plaintiff stated he did not have any firearms.
When the officers entered Plaintiff's apartment, however, they

5 - OPINION AND ORDER

observed pamphlets for firearms on a table as well as an empty
rifle box.

At that point Officer Crooker asked Plaintiff again

if there were any firearms in his apartment.

Officer Crooker

testifies in his Declaration that Plaintiff "began to back away
from [Officer Crooker] and the other officers.

In response

[Officer Crooker] took [Plaintiff's] wrist and handcuffed
Plaintiff 'for his own safety' and read Plaintiff his Miranda
rights.

After some discussion Plaintiff told the officers that

he had firearms and agreed to tell the officers where to find
them in his apartment.

Officers eventually found unloaded .22

and .45 caliber handguns, an unloaded M4 carbine assault rifle,
an unloaded 9mm handgun, and 'thousands of rounds of
ammunition.'"

Crooker Deel. at'][ 10.

"various knifes, survival tools

Officers also found

(including an axe), a canteen,

water bottles, dressings for wounds, rope, extra magazine clips,
and flashlights."

Id.

Officer Crooker testified in his

Declaration that in his experience "(t]he manner in which all
these items were laid out was consistent with that of a
moment's-notice preparedness for immediate accessibility to grab
pre-packed grab bags in the event that combat were to occur
suddenly."

Id.

The officers also found prescriptions for

Percocet and Tramadol in Plaintiff's name, two bottles of
Oxycodone prescribed to Plaintiff's father, and several empty
bottles of alcohol.

6 - OPINION AND ORDER

Officer Crooker spoke with Plaintiff, and,

"after a lengthy conversation," Plaintiff admitted he had made
"bone-headed" comments "including something about using a .45
caliber handgun to kill a professor."

Crooker Deel. at 'll 11.

Phariss and Schellhorn entered Plaintiff's apartment after
Officer Crooker handcuffed Plaintiff.

Phariss and Schellhorn

interviewed Plaintiff for 30 or 40 minutes.

Phariss testifies in

her Declaration that Plaintiff agreed the police could remove the
firearms from hi$ apartment.
confused and .

Plaintiff, however, "appeared to be

kept sending the police to the wrong places to

locate the weapons he had throughout his apartment."
Rachel Phariss at 'll 6.

Deel. of

Phariss states:

[Plaintiff] said he could not remember making the
threatening comments he made to [the student], but
he admitted that he may have made such comments.
[Plaintiff's] conversation was vague and he kept
going off on tangents.
His thought process was
circular.
He denied hearing voices or having
hallucinations.
I could not tell if he was
disoriented, but he did appear to be confused.
He
denied any mental health history, and he denied
having any intent to harm himself.
He seemed to
marginalize the allegation that he had made
threats about shooting one of his professors. He
also denied having any intention to shoot anyone
at PSU.
I observed the following things while I was in
[Plaintiff's] apartment:
(1) the receipt from his
recently purchased AR 15 indicated that he had
bought it after his problems with PSU began;
(2) [Plaintiff] had ammunition and tactical gear,
including duffle bags with dehydrated food,
knives, and "quick stop", which will stop bleeding
if a person is shot by a bullet; (3) there were
empty beer, liquor, and wine bottles strewn about
the apartment; and (4) there were Percocet and
Tramadol pills on his coffee table as well as two
7 - OPINION AND ORDER

bottles of Oxycodone with [Plaintiff's] father's
name on them.
Phariss Deel. at

~~

7-8.

Phariss testifies ft[d]iagnosing

[Plaintiff] was difficult because it was unclear whether his
behavior was due to alcohol, drugs, or mental illness."
Deel. at

~

9.

Phariss

Phariss, therefore, deferred diagnosis, but she

decided Plaintiff. ftwould benefit from a full psychological
evaluation."

Phariss and Schellhorn consulted with Meg Kaveny,

Cascadia Project Respond Supervisor, and Kaveny consulted with
Jay Auslander, Cascadia's Director of Emergency Services.
Ultimately Pharis:s, ·.Kaveny, and Auslander concluded a Director's
Hold on Plaintiff.was justified because there was probable cause
to believe Plaintiff was
dangerous to others and [in] need of immediate
psychological evaluation based on
(1) [Plaintiff's] speech latency, which did not
appear to be a language issue; (2) [Plaintiff's]
apparent confusion; (3) [Plaintiff's] vague
explanations of his behavior; ( 4) [Plaintiff]
minimizing the allegations against him and not
appreciating the seriousness of making threats;
(5) the information regarding his statements
threatening to shoot one of his professors; and
(6) the large amount of weapons, ammunition, and
tactical gear found in his apartment.
Phariss Deel. at

~

9.

Phariss completed a Report of Peace

Officer Custody of an Allegedly Mentally Ill Person as Directed
by a Community Mental Health Director and issued a Director's
Hold on Plaintiff for the following reasons:

8 - OPINION AND ORDER

Concerns about targeted specific threats, large number
of firearms, ammo & tactical gear, speech latencies,
confusion & vague explanation of behavior & previous
statements that minimize concerns.
Extreme risk of
potential harm to others as evidenced by the above risk
factors.
Phariss Deel., Ex. 1 at 1.

The Report directed Officer Crooker

to take Plaintiff into custody and to transport Plaintiff to
Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU)

for evaluation.

Officer Crooker transported Plaintiff to OHSU .. in his patrol car.
Plaintiff remained at OHSU from April 20, 2012, through
April 25, 2012, during which time he was evHluated by numerous
medical professionals including Ors. Anne Gross, Bridgid Crowley,
Joshua Russell, and Robert Henrickson.
In June 2012 Plaintiff was expelled from PSU.
On May 2, 2014, Plaintiff filed pro se a first amended
complaint in Clatsop County Circuit Court against 40 Defendants
alleging seventeen claims for relief related to Plaintiff's
interactions with Portland police officers, the seizure of
Plaintiff's guns, Plaintiff's commitment to the OHSU psychiatric
ward, Plaintif.f' s expulsion from PSU, and articles about
Plaintiff's expulsion published by the PSU newspaper,
Vanguard,

The

all occurring between April 2012 and June 2012.

On June 5, 2014, Defendants removed the matter to this Court
on the basis of federal-question jurisdiction.
At some point before June 30, 2014, Plaintiff obtained
counsel.
9 - OPINION AND ORDER

On August 15, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended
Complaint against 29 Defendants alleging nine claims for relief
related to Plaintiff's interaction with various Portland police
officers, the seizure of Plaintiff's guns,

Plaintiff's commitment

to the OHSU psychiatric ward, and Plaintiff's expulsion from PSU,
all occurring between April 2012 and June 2012.
On August 28,

2015, PSU Defendants filed a Motion for

Summary Judgment as to all of Plaintiff's claims against them.
On November 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension
of Summary Judgment-Related Court-Imposed Deadlines, which PSU
Defendants opposed.
On December 4, 2015, the Court held a status conference.
Based on the parties' representations at that conference, the
Court ordered the parties to meet in person and to confer
regarding the dismissal of certain parties and claims from this
proceeding.

The Court st.ruck all pending Motions and directed

the parties to file a preliminary Pretrial Order setting out the
parties, claims, and defenses that remained in this matter after
the parties' conferral.
On December 18, 2015, the parties filed a Joint Proposed
Pretrial Order in which they dismissed numerous claims and
parties and advised the Court that this matter would proceed only
as to Plaintiff's claims

(1) against the City of Port.land and

Officer Crooker pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

10 - OPINION AND ORDER

§

1983 for unlawful seizure

in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Fourth Amendment to
the United States Constitution;
U.S.C.

§

(2) against OHSU pursuant to 42

1983 for unlawful confinement in violation of the Fourth

Amendment to the United States Constitution;

(3) against PSU,

Defendant Jacqueline Balzer, and Defendant Domanic Thomas
pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§

1983 for violation of Plaintiff's right

to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United
States Constitution;

(4) against the City of Portland and Officer

Crooker for false arrest and/or confinement in violation of state
law;

(5) against Cascadia Behavioral Healthcare for unlawful

confinement in violation of state law;

(6) against PSU,

Sergeant Schilling, and Cascadia for negligence "based on their
respective roles in the arrest of Plaintiff"; and (7) against
PSU, Balzer, and Thomas for negligence in "failing to exercise
due care in connection with the process and proceedings that led
to Plaintiff's expulsion from PSU."
On December 23, 2015, PSU Defendants filed a Renewed Motion
for Summary Judgment.
On January 15, 2016, Cascadia filed a Renewed Motion for
Summary Judgment.

The Court took Cascadia's Motion under

advisement on March 1, 2016.
On March 28, 2016, the Court issued an Opinion and Order in
which it granted PSU Defendants' Renewed Motion for Summary
Judgment and dismissed with prejudice Plaintiff's claims against

11 - OPINION AND ORDER

PSU Defendants.

STANDARDS

Summary judgment is appropriate when "there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law."
States,

Washington Mut.

636 F.3d 1207, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011).

Civ. P. 56(a).

Ins. v. United

See also Fed. R.

The moving party must show the absence of a

dispute as to a material fact.

Rivera v. Philip Morris, Inc.,

395 F.3d 1142, 1146 (9th Cir. 2005).

In response to a properly

supported motion for summary judgment, the nonmoving party must
go beyond the pleadings and show there is a genuine dispute as to
a material fact for trial.

Id.

"This burden is not a light o·ne

The non-moving party must do more than show there is
some 'metaphysical doubt' as to the material facts at issue."

In

re Oracle Corp. Sec. Litig., 627 F.3d 376, 387 (9th Cir. 2010)
(citation omitted).
A dispute as to a material fact is genuine "if the evidence
is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the
nonmoving party."

Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d

1054, 1061 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248

(1986)).

The court must draw all

reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.
v. Verity, Inc.,

606 F. 3d 584, 587 (9th Cir. 2010).

12 - OPINION AND ORDER

Sluimer

"Summary

judgment cannot be granted where contrary inferences may be drawn
from the evidence as to material issues."
381 F.3d 948, 957

Easter v. Am. W. Fin.,

(9th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted).

A "mere

disagreement or bald assertion" that a genuine dispute as to a
material fact exists "will not preclude the grant of summary
judgment."

Deering v. Lassen Cmty. Coll. Dist., No. 2:07-CV-

1521-JAM-DAD, 2011 WL 202797, at *2 (E.D. Cal., Jan. 20, 2011)
(citing Harper v .. Wallingford, 877 F.2d 728, 731 (9th Cir.
1989)).

When the nonmoving party's claims are factually

implausible, that party must "come forward with more persuasive
evidence than otherwise would be necessary."
v. Brekka,

581. F. 3d 1127, 1137

LVRC Holdings LLC

(9th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted).

The substantive law governing a claim or a defense
determines whether a fact is material.
Prod., Inc.,

454 F.3d 975,

987

Miller v. Glenn Miller

(9th Cir. 2006).

If the

resolution of a factual dispute would not affect the outcome of
the claim, the court may grant summary judgment.

Id.

DISCUSSION

As noted, Plaintiff's remaining claims against Cascadia are
for unlawful confinement in violation of state law and negligence
"based on [its] role[] in the arrest of Plaintiff."

Cascadia

moves for summary judgment on both of Plaintiff's claims against
it on the grounds that former Oregon Revised Statute
13 - OPINION AND ORDER

§

426.355(6)

grants Cascadia complete immunity from liability or, in the
alternative, Plaintiff's claims against Cascadia are meritless.
Former Oregon Revised Statute§ 426.233 authorized
Director's Holds at the time Phariss placed a Director's Hold on
Plaintiff.

Former § 426.233 provided in pertinent part:
(1) (a) A community mental health program director
. may take one of the actions listed in
paragraph (b) of this subsection when the
community mental health program director or
designee has probable cause to believe a person:
(A) Is dangerous to self or to any other
person and is in need of immediate care,
custody or treatment for .mental illness.

* * *
(b) The community mental health program director
or designee under the circumstances set out in
paragraph (a) of this subsection may:
(A) Notify a peace officer to take the person
into custody and direct the officer to remove
the person to a hospital or nonhospital
facility approved by the Oregon Health
Authority.
The Director's Hold authorized under former§ 426.233 permits
only transportation of the individual to a hospital or facility.
After the individual is transported, former Oregon Revised
Statute § 426.232 permitted physicians to issue independently a
two-physician hold that authorized a physician to cause an
individual to be admitted to or retained at a hospital only after
consulting with a second physician and after determining the
individual is dangerous to himself or to others and in need of

14 - OPINION AND ORDER

emergency care or treatment for mental illness.

As noted,

Cascadia only issued the Director's Hold authorized by former
§ 426.233 and did not have any involvement in deciding to admit
or to retain Plaintiff when he arrived at OHSU.
Former Oregon Revised Statute§ 426.335(6) provided:
No peace officer, person authorized under ORS
426.233, community mental health director or
designee, hospital or other facility, physician or
judge shall in any way be held criminally or
civilly liable for actions pursuant to ORS 426.228
to 426.235 if the individual or facility acts in
good faith, on probable cause and without malice.
Cascadia asserts this provision provides Cascadia with immunity
as to Plaintiff's claims because Phariss acted in good faith,
without malice, and with probable cause when she placed a
Director's Hold on Plaintiff.
Plaintiff, however, asserts Phariss did not have probable
cause 1 to issue the Director's Hold because the threats that
Plaintiff made were "merely hyperbolic," he did not do anything
illegal, he lawfully owned the firearms found at his apartment,
he was legally prescribed the Percocet and Tramadol, his father
left the Oxycodone when he visited Plaintiff's apartment, and
Plaintiff stated during his conversation with Officer Crooker
that he did not intend to commit any act of violence.
Probable cause is not defined in Chapter 426.

1

Oregon

Plaintiff appears to concede that Phariss acted in good
faith and without malice and does not present any evidence to the
contrary.
15 - OPINION AND ORDER

courts, however, have analogized probable cause in Chapter 426 to
the definition set out in Oregon Revised Statute § 131.005 2 and
have held it is defined as "a substantial objective basis for

believing that more likely than not a person is mentally ill."
See Pyles v. Winters, No. 1:12-cv-00346-CL, 2013 WL 3475331, at

*4 (D. Or. July 9, 2013) (citing State v. Smith, 71 Or. App. 205,
211 (1984)).
exists,

When "determining whether objective probable cause

[the court must] consider the totality of the

circumstances presented to the officer and reasonable inferences
that may be drawn from those circumstances; no single factor is
dispositive."

State v. Kelly,

274 Or. App. 363, 372

(2015) (quotation omitted).
"'The determination of probable cause is a legal, not a
factual, conclusion.
certainty.'"
Herbert,

Probable cause does not require

Pyles, 2013 WL 3475331, at *4

302 Or. 237,

241 (1986)).

(quoting State v.

"[I]f there is probable

cause, it is irrelevant if the person turns out to be
noncommittable."

Id.

(citing Chathas v. Smith, 884 F.2d 980, 987

(7th Cir. 1989)).

The issue, therefore, is not whether Plaintiff

is mentally ill, but whether under the totality of the
circumstances Cascadia had information sufficient to form a

2

Oregon Revised Statute§ 131.005(11) defines probable
cause as "a substantial objective basis for believing that more
likely than not an offense has been committed and a person to be
arrested has committed it."
16 - OPINION AND ORDER

substantial objective belief that it was more likely than not
that Plaintiff was a danger to himself or to others.
As noted, Phariss testifies in her Declaration that
Plaintiff admitted he made threatening comments about PSU
professors and staff to another student.

In addition, evidence

in Plaintiff's apartment indicated he purchased an assault rifle
after his disagreements with his professors.

Plaintiff's

"conversation was vague and he kept going off on tangents.
thought process was circular."

His

Phariss testified Plaintiff

denied hearing voices or having hallucinations, but he did appear
to be confused.

Phariss testified although Plaintiff denied any

intent to shoot anyone at PSU, Plaintiff "marginalized the
allegation that he had made threats about shooting one of his
professors."

In addition, Phariss observed Plaintiff had

numerous firearms in his apartment as well as ammunition; duffle
bags with dehydrated food; knives; "quick stop"; empty beer,
liquor, and wine bottles strewn about the apartment; and Percocet
and Tramadol as well as two bottles of Oxycodone with Plaintiff's
father's name on them.
Plaintiff testifies in his Declaration that he had "camping
equipment, like backpacks, food, water, a first-aid kit,
including QuikClot and emergency supplies, rope, and an ax" in
his apartment on April 20, 2012, because his "fiancee was [going
to] visit[] from Shanghai, and [he] planned to take her camping."

17 - OPINION AND ORDER

Deel. of Henry Liu at

15.

~

Plaintiff also testifies he

attempted to explain the presence of these items to officers, but
"no one seemed to care."

Id.

As Cascadia points out, however,

Phariss stated in her contemporaneous Report that Plaintiff
"never explained his large amount of ammo or tactical gear to
[her] or the police."

In addition, Plaintiff's initial

assessment notes from when he arrived at OHSU on April 20, 2012,
reflect Plaintiff's statement that he "lives alone [and] does not
have a girlfriend/ partner."
at 9.

Deel. of Micah D. Fargey, Ex. 2

Similarly, on April 21, 2012, during Plaintiff's initial

psychiatric evaluation by Paul Leung, M.D., Plaintiff noted his
current relationships were "family."

Fargey Deel., Ex.

Plaintiff did not mention a girlfriend or partner.

3 at 3.

In

Plaintiff's Discharge Summary completed by Bridgid Crowley, M.D.,
on April 25, 2012, however, Plaintiff reportedly stated the
"packs found in his apartment were to be used for camping and
spending time outdoors with his fiance."

Fargey Deel., Ex. 2 at

19.

Plaintiff also testifies in his Declaration that he was not
dazed or confused when officers arrived at his apartment, and he
was polite, kind, respectful, patient, honest, and transparent.
Liu Deel. at

~

12.

The Declarations of Officer Crooker and

Phariss, however, indicate Plaintiff was confused.

Similarly,

Phariss's contemporaneous Report indicated Plaintiff was confused

18 - OPINION AND ORDER

and disoriented.

In addition, the OHSU intake notes from

April 20, 2012, reflect Plaintiff's thought process was
"disorganized, pt had trouble remembering questions, answering
questions sequentially, etc."

Fargey Deel., Ex. 2 at 9.

Plaintiff's memory was described as "unreliable, pt was not
forthcoming with either officers of SW, reports gaps in his
memory.

/1

Id.

On this record the Court concludes Plaintiff has not
established there is any genuine dispute of material fact as to
whether Cascadia had information sufficient to form a substantial
objective belief, based on the totality of the circumstances,
that it was more likely than not that Plaintiff was a danger to
himself or to others.

Nevertheless, even when the record is

viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court
concludes as a matter of law that Cascadia had probable cause to
issue a Director's Hold on Plaintiff pursuant to former§
426.233.

Cascadia, therefore, is immune from Plaintiff's

remaining claims against it pursuant to

§

426.335(6).

Accordingly, the Court grants Cascadia's Motion for Summary
Judgment.

CONCLUSION

For these reasons, the Court GRANTS Cascadia's Motion (#162)
for Summary Judgment and DISMISSES with prejudice Plaintiff's

19 - OPINION AND ORDER

claims against Cascadia.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 12th day of May, 2016.

ANNA J. BROWN
United States District Judge

20 - OPINION AND ORDER