Judge Joanna Seybert
Plaintiffs, individually and as the administratrix of the Estate of Prodan, asserted claims arising out of Prodan’s death while in the custody of defendant Aid to the Developmentally Disabled (ADD). Plaintiffs asserted claims against state defendants pursuant to 42 USC 1983 for violating their substantive and procedural due process rights, alleging that Prodan "had a cognizable life interest and liberty interest, to be able to be protected by state monitoring and oversight agencies that were charged with carrying out the state’s mandate to enhance the quality of life of mentally disabled citizens of the state…and to protect them from abuse and violations of their statutory and constitutional rights." Defendants argued that this is not an interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The court agreed, finding the ADD defendant’s conduct cannot be attributable to the state under the public function test, as it is a private entity and not a "state" institution. The court added that since ADD is not a state actor under §1983, Prodan was not in the custody of the state while he was at ADD. The court concluded that Prodan was not being restrained by or in custody of the state, and therefore had no constitutional right to protection by the government.
