The opinion of the court was delivered by: ROBINSON
This case came before the Three-Judge Court, the Honorable Spottswood W. Robinson, III, United States Circuit Court, The Honorable John Lewis Smith, Jr., United States District Court, and The Honorable June L. Green, United States District Court, presiding, and the issues having been duly considered and a decision having been duly rendered, it is this 7th day of January 1975,
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction be and the same hereby is denied; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment be and the same hereby is granted, and this action be, and the same hereby is dismissed.
Circuit Judge Robinson would dissolve the three-judge court and leave the case for single-judge disposition, for the reasons fully set forth in his dissenting opinion.
Spottswood W. Robinson, III / United States Circuit Judge
This case is before the Court on Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment.* Since the facts of this case and the issues raised are substantially parallel to those in Medynski v. Margolis, 389 F. Supp. 743 (D.D.C. 1975), the two cases have been considered together.
Plaintiff David Barrows alleges, as did Elsie Medynski, that the procedure for involuntary detention and commitment of mentally ill persons pursuant to 21 D.C. Code § 901, et seq. (Mentally Ill Persons Found in Certain Federal Reservations), is violative of due process and equal protection under the Fifth Amendment. Plaintiff was detained pursuant to 21 D.C. Code § 901, et seq., on a federal reservation, Dulles International Airport in Loudoun County, Virginia. In conformity with the Act, plaintiff was detained at St. Elizabeths Hospital pending a hearing which resulted in plaintiff's commitment to the Hospital for a 30-day observation period pursuant to 21 D.C. Code § 902. On October 10, 1974, plaintiff was released to make his own arrangements for additional psychiatric care.
On the basis of the analysis of facts and the conclusions of law which this Court has set forth in Medynski, we would deny plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction and grant defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2284.