Trueblood v. Washington State Department of Social And Health Services
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
822 F.3d 1037 (2016)

- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
Defendants suspected of being mentally incompetent to stand trial on criminal charges typically were jailed while awaiting their competence evaluations or competence-restoring medical treatment. Cassie Trueblood, as the next friend of a mentally incompetent detainee, Ara Badayos (plaintiff), filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 class-action suit against the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS). Trueblood alleged that DSHS left many detainees in jail for far longer than the seven to 14 days that a recent state statute had set as the aspirational time frame for conducting competence evaluations and providing restorative treatment. Based on bench-trial evidence, the district court found that DSHS already provided most evaluations and treatment within seven days and that seven days was a feasible time frame for providing all evaluations and treatment. The court ruled that delaying any evaluation or treatment more than seven days unreasonably deprived a detainee of his constitutionally protected liberty interest in freedom from incarceration. The court issued an injunction requiring DSHS to transfer any such unreasonably detained detainee from jail to DSHS facilities. DSHS appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (McKeown, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.