The case between Bowers v. Devito, Thomas Vanda murdered Marguerite Anne Bowers after he was set free from the Department of Mental Health in Illinois. Thomas Vanda was identified as having schizoid and was borderline psychotic, Mr. Vanda has an extended past of uncontrollable behavior that in which he becomes very violent. Mr. Vanda was arrested in 1971 for the murder of a minor but found not guilty in 1975 due to reason of insanity and later released from the Department of Mental Health, stating that Mr. Vanda was no longer a danger to himself or to other people. Not to long after being released from the Department of Mental Health he was involved in another murder. In the course of Mr. Vanda release from the Department of Mental Health the accused had no direct supervision with Thomas Vanda. The careless release of, and negligent to oversee, Mr. Vanda was the cause of Ms. Bowers' death, and thus …show more content…
Vanda’s history the parole board failed to follow the standard procedures. The actions of the parole board caused them to be liable for Ms. Bowers death. Mr. Vanda should have never been released. Under tort law a state could be said either to have had a duty to avoid harm to his victim or to have imminent causing her death, in which liability under federal law cannot cohere excepting that there is the requisite state action for the purposes of section 1983. In Vanda’s case, there had been a year that went by before the murder of Ms. Bowers (Samaha, J. 2018). During this time frame, the accused had no direct supervision of the parolee. The defendants were not appreciative of any danger the parolee Mr. Vanda posed to the community or to the decedent. Were the actions of the board so direct account of his carelessness release of Mr. Vanda that it assumes the state action as required to state a claim under section 1983? I surmise that the incontestable facts fail to establish the necessary state