In O'Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563 (1975), the respondent, Donaldson, had been involuntarily confined in a mental institution for almost fifteen years. During his confinement, Donaldson had repeatedly "demanded his release, claiming that he was dangerous to no one, that he was not mentally ill, and that, at any rate, the hospital was not providing treatment for his supposed illness." Id. at 565. He subsequently filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, claiming that members of the hospital staff had "intentionally and maliciously deprived him of his constitutional right to liberty." Id. at 563. The evidence adduced at trial "demonstrated, without contradiction, that Donaldson had posed no danger to others during his long confinement, or indeed at any point in his life." Id. at 568. There was no evidence adduced "that Donaldson had ever been suicidal or been thought likely to inflict injury upon himself." Id. Furthermore, "Donaldson's frequent requests for release had been supported by responsible persons willing to provide him any care he might need on release," and the record showed that despite his apparently mild paranoid schizophrenia, Donaldson had been able, both before and after his commitment, to "earn his own living outside the hospital" through a "responsible job in hotel administration." Id. Finally, the evidence established that Donaldson's "confinement was a simple regime of enforced custodial care, not a program designed to alleviate or cure his supposed illness." Id. at 569. A jury returned a verdict in Donaldson's favor, which was affirmed by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the hospital's superintendent appealed. The Supreme Court held that "the fact that state law may have authorized confinement of the harmless mentally ill does not itself establish a constitutionally adequate purpose for the confinement." Id. at 574. Additionally, the Supreme Court stated, even if Donaldson's original involuntary confinement was constitutionally permissible, such confinement "could not constitutionally continue after that basis no longer existed." The Court reasoned as follows: A finding of 'mental illness' alone cannot justify a State's locking a person up against his will and keeping him indefinitely in simple custodial confinement. Assuming that that term can be given a reasonably precise content and that the 'mentally ill' can be identified with reasonable accuracy, there is still no constitutional basis for confining such persons involuntarily if they are dangerous to no one and can live safely in freedom. Id. at 575. The Supreme Court held that "a finding of 'mental illness' alone cannot justify a State's locking a person up against his will and keeping him indefinitely in simple custodial confinement" because "a State cannot constitutionally confine without more a nondangerous individual who is capable of surviving safely in freedom by himself or with the help of willing and responsible family members or friends." (Id. at p. 575, 576.)