Torisky v. Schweiker

This appeal presents the issue of whether a states affirmative duty under the Due Process Clause to care for and protect a mental health patient in state custody depends upon the individuals custody being involuntary. Contrary to the District Courts resolution of this issue, we conclude that the state does not owe the affirmative duties of care and protection first enunciated in Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307 (1982), to those individuals who are free to leave state custody. We will affirm the District Courts order denying appellants claim to qualified immunity, however, because resolution of that claim should await fuller development of the record.