Rich v. Palko

What This Case Is About

Rich v. Palko addresses the use of force against persons with severe mental disabilities during police-assisted mental health transports. The Fifth Circuit reversed the denial of qualified immunity, finding that officers who responded to a 911 call requesting help transporting a mentally incapacitated person to a psychiatric hospital acted reasonably under the circumstances.

The Facts

Gavrila Dupuis-Mays sustained a brain injury as an infant and has cerebral palsy, mental retardation, bi-polar disorder, depression, ADHD, and epilepsy. He lived in a group home in McKinney, Texas. On July 10, 2015, he was released from a psychiatric facility after inpatient evaluation for depressed ideation.

Between July 10 and 11, McKinney Police were called to the group home four times because Dupuis-Mays kept trying to run away. The final call came at 2:01 a.m. on July 11, from his caseworker, Rhonda Holley. She told the 911 operator that Dupuis-Mays needed inpatient care because he was “in a psychotic phase, where he is verbally and physically aggressive towards staff.” Holley confirmed he had not hit anyone but was “covered in feces and refusing to bathe.” She had called Green Oaks Hospital first, and they recommended calling 911.

Officers Michael Palko and Keith Hudgens responded. A group home caretaker explained that Dupuis-Mays was increasingly psychotic and that staff did not feel safe transporting him. The officers entered his room, where he was lying in bed covered in feces. They attempted to get him to stand and cooperate with transport. When Dupuis-Mays did not cooperate, the officers used physical force to restrain and transport him. Jeri Rich, his adoptive mother, sued the officers under § 1983.

What the Court Decided

The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of summary judgment and rendered judgment dismissing the case with prejudice.

Seizure analysis: The court first considered whether Dupuis-Mays was “seized” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Because the officers were called to transport him to a psychiatric facility — not to arrest him — the encounter had characteristics of both a seizure and a community caretaking function.

Objectively reasonable force: Even assuming a Fourth Amendment seizure occurred, the court found the officers’ actions objectively reasonable. They responded to a 911 call from a professional caretaker requesting police help. The person they encountered was in a psychotic state, covered in feces, and had been trying to run away repeatedly. The staff felt unsafe transporting him. The officers used the force necessary to accomplish the transport that the caretaker had requested.

No clearly established violation: The court held that no clearly established law put the officers on notice that their specific conduct was unconstitutional. There was no prior case with sufficiently similar facts — officers responding to a caretaker’s request to help transport a severely mentally disabled person in psychotic crisis — to establish the contours of the right.

Why This Case Matters for Your § 1983 Case

• Police-assisted mental health transports have unique legal dynamics: When officers are called by caretakers to help transport someone to a psychiatric facility, courts give significant deference to the officers’ use of force.
• The “clearly established” requirement is strict: Even if force seems excessive in hindsight, qualified immunity protects officers unless a prior case with very similar facts established that their specific conduct was unlawful.
• Who called 911 matters: When the person requesting police assistance is a professional caretaker or medical staff — rather than a stranger or adversary — officers receive more deference for following their guidance.
• Persons with mental disabilities deserve protection: While this case favored the officers, it highlights the ongoing problem of police interactions with mentally ill individuals. Advocacy for crisis intervention teams (CIT) and mental health response alternatives may prevent these encounters.
• Challenge the characterization of events: If officers claim they were performing a community caretaking function, challenge whether their conduct was truly non-adversarial or whether it devolved into a forcible seizure requiring full Fourth Amendment scrutiny.

Key Takeaway

When officers respond to a professional caretaker’s 911 request for help transporting a severely mentally disabled person to a psychiatric facility and use force to accomplish that transport, qualified immunity will likely protect them — particularly when no prior case with closely matching facts has established that such conduct violates the Fourth Amendment.