Eilers v Coy Brief

1) Title and Citation: Eilers v Coy 582 F. Supp. 1093 (Minn. 1984) 2) Identity of the Parties: Plaintiff- Williams Eilers (24 year old male) a. Defendants- Plaintiff’s parents, relatives, and deprogrammers 3) Procedural History: Plaintiff accused defendants of false imprisonment and the violation of his civil rights during the attempt deprogramming. Plaintiff motioned for directed verdict. Motion for directed verdict granted. 4) Facts: Family claims in a letter dated 08/16/82 the plaintiff allegedly threatened to commit suicide. On 07/26/82 Joyce Peterson (psychiatric social worker) interviewed the plaintiff and reported to the parents of the plaintiff that the plaintiff was not a threat to himself or others. On Monday 08/16/82 Plaintiff and wife abducted from a clinic in Winona Minnesota by their parents to deprogram them from the religious group Disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ. Plaintiff held against his will at Tau Center, restrained, and monitored by hired security. Instructions were given to not allow the plaintiff to leave the facility. After several days of resistance plaintiff appeared to consent. On Saturday 8/21/82 during transport to Iowa City, Iowa for further deprogramming the plaintiff escaped out the moving vehicle, and was subsequently helped by civilians who summoned police. 5) Issue: The claim of false imprisonment and violation of plaintiff’s civil rights during attempted deprogramming. Is the application of the defense of necessity applicable in this case? 6) Holding and rule derived from case: Yes, the directed verdict request from the plaintiff was granted as it was determined the defendants were not acting out of necessity. 7) Reasoning: Court stated the defense of necessity was not applicable in this case. Despite the defendants claiming they feared for the well-being of the