Monthly Law Journal Artice: Civil Liability for Inadequate Prisoner Medical Care, 2007 (9) AELE Mo. L.J. 301.
     Monthly Law Journal Article: Forced Feeding or Medication of Prisoners, 2007 (12) AELE Mo. L. J. 301.
     Monthly Law Journal Article: Mental Health Care of Prisoners, 2009 (11) AELE Mo. L. J. 301.
     A prisoner sought an injunction against being placed in a double-bunked cell. He had repeatedly refused orders to enter such a cell, and had been disciplined for these refusals. He claimed to suffer from "mental health issues" which would make double-bunking an "inhumane" condition of confinement and put him at substantial risk of harm from anxiety over the possibility of fights and violence. The trial court held that he had stated a possible Eighth Amendment claim, but that he had to produce some evidence of his purported mental health issues. The court rejected the plaintiff's due process and equal protection claims since he had no protected right to a single-bunk cell and had not been treated differently than other similarly situated inmates. Finally, the prisoner had no First Amendment right to "keep to himself" and refuse to be placed in a double-bunked cell. He was given 45 days to produce evidence of a mental illness justifying his alleged need not to be placed in a cell with another prisoner. Restucci v. Clarke, #09-10584, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 106880 (D. Mass.).
     In a lawsuit filed by the sister of a detainee who successfully committed suicide, a federal appeals court upheld a finding of no liability on civil rights claims against the county, but reversed summary judgment for a psychiatrist under contract with the jail on a medical malpractice claim. The psychiatrist, who was consulted by jail personnel on the detainee's prescriptions, tried to meet with him for a psychiatric examination, but the detainee became "highly agitated" and refused to speak with him in front of a jail officer. The psychiatrist believed that this was a manic episode and discontinued an antidepressant medication to attempt to deal with it. For purposes of the medical malpractice claim, this was a treatment decision, resulting in a duty of care. Whether the psychiatrist violated the applicable standard of care and whether this proximately caused the detainee's death required further proceedings to determine. While it was clear that the jail's express policy required the presence of a jail officer during the interview with the psychiatrist, this was not a violation of the detainee's constitutional rights. Hunter v. Amin, #08-3719, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 21731 (7th Cir.).
     Prison officials did not act with deliberate indifference to a prisoner's mental health needs in downgrading his mental health status and having him placed in the general population, where he harmed himself. There was no established protected liberty interest in a prisoner's mental health classification. Rather than showing deliberate indifference, the actions taken merely reflected a difference of opinion about the care that the plaintiff needed. West v. Higgins, #08-11309, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 21057 (Unpub. 11th Cir.).
     An inmate failed to show that a prison psychiatrist failed to provide him with needed treatment or disregarded a known risk of harm he faced. He also failed to show that the psychiatrist conspired with prison officials to unlawfully revoke his single-cell status or that placing him in a double-cell subjected him to an atypical and significant hardship. His claims that he suffered from depression, paranoia, and physical discomfort were not serious enough to show an Eighth Amendment violation. Hodges v. Wilson, #08-4868, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 17828 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
     Injuries a prisoner allegedly suffered from withdrawal from Xanax, which he claimed included hallucinations, nausea, anxiety, and fluctuating blood pressure, did not satisfy the requirement, under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 19997e(e) that he show physical injury before being able to recover damages for mental injuries. At the time, the plaintiff prisoner himself only complained of cold symptoms and "agitation." Additionally, because medical personnel provided other psychotropic medication during his Xanax withdrawal, they were not deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. Chatham v. Adcock, #07-14995, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 13731 (Unpub. 11th Cir.).
     A new Florida law, effective July 1, 2009, requires law enforcement agencies to have a protocol with care facilities concerning mental health examination of persons transported there. "Each law enforcement agency shall develop a memorandum of understanding with each receiving facility within the law enforcement's jurisdiction which reflects a single set of protocols for the safe and secure transportation of the person and transfer of custody of the person. These protocols must also address crisis-intervention measures."
     Jail employees were not entitled to qualified immunity in a lawsuit contending that they were deliberately indifferent to the serious medical needs of a prisoner with mental problems, resulting in his death. The complaint alleged that the prisoner's mother brought his anti-depression medicine to the jail, that he received it until it ran out, and that his new prescription was not available until two days later. When the prisoner's cellmate informed an employee of the sheriff's department that the prisoner had been engaging in odd behavior and swallowing shampoo, a reasonable jury could conclude that the defendants knew that he needed medical attention, but acted with deliberate indifference to that need. Vaughn v. Gray, #07-2921, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 4800 (8th Cir.).
     A prisoner failed to show that there was a genuine issue concerning whether he was provided inadequate treatment for mental health problems. He was provided with psychiatric medications within 30 days of his arrival at a county jail. His lawsuit demonstrated merely a disagreement with the course of treatment provided, rather than deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. The court also rejected a claim concerning treatment provided for an erupted wisdom tooth, when a dentist who examined the prisoner found no cause for concern. Jaquez v. Newell, #07-CV-498, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 15964 (N.D. Ok.).
     A prisoner failed to show that the decision to forcibly medicate him with anti-psychotic drugs constituted deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. The trial court had authorized the expenditure of funds for the prisoner to hire an expert for the purpose of making an assessment of the medical evidence, but the prisoner declined to do so. His failure to present expert witness evidence could not be overcome solely by the prisoner's presentation of his own sworn statement concerning his treatment. Aruanno v. Glazman, #07-2543, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 4154 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
     Inmate failed to establish a claim for inadequate medical treatment, as he was examined by a number of mental health providers while incarcerated, as well as being provided with treatment for a number of physical ailments. His medical needs were not "serious," he suffered no long-term effects from any delay in treatment, and he never complained about his treatment while at the prison. Tsakonas v. Cicchi, No. 07-4115, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 1856 (3rd Cir.).
     Prison administrators would be authorized to provide consent to medical treatment on a prisoner's behalf when he was engaged in a hunger strike predicated on "delusional" reasons that showed an "irrational" thought process. Conservatorship of Burton, No. F0548632009, Cal. App. Lexis 96 (Cal. App. 5th Dist.).
     An Ohio prisoner claimed that lithium prescribed for his mental condition caused failure of his kidneys, and that he was he being medicated in this manner over his objections. He also claimed that he was improperly held down and forcibly administered anti-psychotic drugs on at least one occasion. The court also found, in the alternative, that the requirements of procedural due process had been met. There was no violation of the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment since the facts alleged did not show that the care provided by prison doctors was grossly inadequate or medically unsound. Kramer v. Wilkinson, No. 07-4104, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 24538 (Unpub. 6th Cir.).
     In a class action over alleged inadequate mental health care of inmates at a county jail, the plaintiffs failed to define in "reasonably particular" detail, what adequate mental health screening would be or a system for delivering medications, and that injunctive relief concerning the treatment of the class was manageable and "conceivable," in light of the individual characteristics and circumstances of class members, including the severity and nature of their mental illnesses. Class certification was therefore properly denied. Shook v. Board of County Commissioners, County of El Paso, No. 06-1454, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 18542 (10th Cir.).
    While an inmate's claim concerning his allegedly inadequate mental health treatment focused on his desire to be admitted to a particular mental health facility, he was nevertheless required under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e of the Prison Litigation Reform Act to exhaust all available administrative procedures before filing suit, even if those procedures could not provide him with the precise relief that he was seeking. He had an opportunity to appeal a decision to transfer him out of the facility after a determination that his conduct had become a "barrier" to his participation in the program there, but failed to appeal. Additionally, examining psychologists failed to find that he suffered from a mental illness. The trial court properly granted summary judgment to the defendants in his lawsuit. Gruenberg v. Lundquist, No. 08-1251, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 18216 (Unpub. 7th Cir.).
     A psychiatrist's deliberate indifference caused a mentally ill prisoner's death from severe dehydration he experienced after he was kept in a 90 to 100 degree observation room for several days. A jury awarded $2 million in compensatory damages and $3 million in punitive damages. The compensatory damage award was reduced to $1.5 million. A federal appeals court rejected arguments that the remaining damage awards were excessive, and found that there was sufficient evidence for the deliberate indifference finding, as well as a medical malpractice claim. Further proceedings were ordered on the trial court's reasons for allocating the compensatory damage award between the federal deliberate indifference claim and a state law medical malpractice claim, which was subject to a cap on non-economic damages. Gibson v. Moskowitz, No. 07-1074, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 9233 (6th Cir.).
     A federal civil detainee sufficiently presented a claim that prison employees acted with deliberate indifference to his mental health needs by denying him needed psychiatric treatment despite his deteriorating condition, which went beyond mere negligence in care. Because he was a civil detainee, and not a prisoner, he was not required to exhaust available administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a). Additionally, as a civil detainee, his claims were analyzed under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, rather than under the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. The detainee was confined under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 4246(a), providing for the hospitalization (and continued detention) of a person in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons when their sentence is about to expire or when criminal charges against them have been dismissed on the basis of their mental condition, if they suffer from a mental disease or defect as a result of which their release would create a "substantial risk of bodily harm to another persons or serious damage to property of another." Hicks v. James, No. 06-6786, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 28251 (4th Cir.).
     In a lawsuit over the death of an allegedly mentally ill pretrial detainee while in custody in a county jail, the plaintiff failed to show that the decedent had been discriminated against because of his alleged disability of mental illness or that there had been deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. There was also no proof of an official policy or custom of depriving mentally ill detainees of needed medical treatment. The cause of the detainee's death was a previously undiagnosed physical ailment of  "peritonitis due to a perforated ulcer," and the prisoner's mental illness may have rendered meaningful communication with the medical personnel who treated him "almost impossible." In the absence of accurate information from the patient, the medical personnel were denied information that might have aided in their ability to timely diagnose the perforated ulcer. Winters v. Arkansas Dep't of Health & Human Servs., No. 06-2787 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 15486. (8th Cir.).
     A New York prisoner failed to show that correctional officials violated his due process rights by putting him on a restrictive diet that he claimed aggravated his existing mental health condition, resulting in him suffering a mental breakdown. There was no violation of due process, based on the fact that a medical clearance was given before the diet was implemented. A federal appeals court, however, reinstated the prisoner's Eighth Amendment claim, finding that the trial court used too high a standard, requiring the prisoner to show that correctional officials acted in a sadistic and malicious manner, rather than with deliberate indifference to his health or safety. The prisoner adequately alleged that correctional officials knew about the seriousness of his mental condition, and intentionally used a false charge to impose the restricted diet which caused his breakdown, requiring further proceedings. Guilbert v. Sennet, No. 05-6594, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 13401 (2nd Cir.).
     While a prisoner suffering from a bipolar disorder and severe depression showed that he had serious medical needs, he failed to show that a mental health counselor acted with deliberate indifference to these needs by denying him medication after learning from a psychiatrist that he had been self-medicating himself. The counselor made a good-faith effort to determine whether the inmate's symptoms justified medication and allegedly determined that they did not. Goodrich v. Clinton County Prison, No. 04-3741, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 1148 (3rd Cir.). [N/R]
     New York state corrections law does not give prison superintendents authority to authorize the commitment of inmates who are sexual offenders to psychiatric hospitals in a unilateral manner. Prisoners are entitled, prior to such commitment, to procedural safeguards, including a right to be heard in court. New York ex rel. Harkavy v. Consilvio, No. 140, 2006 N.Y. Lexis 3580. [N/R]
     Despite prior suicide attempt by detainee, jail caseworker/counselor was not liable for 18-year-old's subsequent successful suicide when she returned him to a single person cell in the general population of the jail. She was entitled to qualified immunity, as there was no clearly established law indicating that her actions would violate his constitutional rights, even if she arguably acted with poor judgment. Perez v. Oakland County, No. 05-1583, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 25754 (6th Cir.). [2006 JB Dec]
     Detainee in county jail presented a viable equal protection claim by alleging that the jail had a policy and practice of discrimination and that an officer there discriminated against him in his conditions of confinement because of his mental illness of bi-polar disorder. Glisson v. Sangamon County Sheriff's Department, No. 05-3250, 408 F. Supp. 2d 609 (C.D. Ill. 2006). [N/R]
     Bipolar prisoner who saw mental health staff, counselors, and doctors 38 times in a 13 month period failed to show that prison authorities acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, or retaliated against him for filing a grievance by pursuing misconduct charges against him or transferring him to another facility. Moots v. Lombardi, No. 05-1594, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 17479 (8th Cir.). [2006 JB Sep]
     Prisoner's claim that officials violated his due process rights by requiring him to agree to take anti-psychotic medications specified by a program coordinator of a sex offender treatment program as a condition of parole was not frivolous, and should not have been dismissed on that basis. The prisoner stated a possible claim for infringement on his liberty interest in avoiding the unwanted administration of anti-psychotic medications. Bundy v. Stommel, No. 05-1099, 168 Fed. Appx. 870 (10th Cir. 2006). [N/R]
     Under Kentucky state law, a county jail, rather than the state, had the financial responsibility of providing indigent prisoners with psychotropic medications. Osborne v. Commonwealth, No. 2004-SC-000566, 185 S.W.2d 645 (Ky. 2006). [N/R]
     Nebraska prisoner did not have a clear right under state law to access to his mental health records, nor a federally protected constitutional right to such access, and therefore was not entitled to a court order requiring correctional officials to provide him with a copy of the records. State ex rel. Jacob v. Bohn, No. S-04-1410, 711 N.W.2d 884 (Neb. 2006). [N/R]
     Schizophrenic prisoner who murdered Jeffrey Dahmer and two other persons failed to show that prison officials at Supermax facility knew that the heat in his cell, the constant illumination there, and the denial of his request for audiotapes to "still the voices" in his head were making his mental illness worse. Scarver v. Litscher, No. 05-2999, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 1135 (7th Cir.). [2006 JB Mar]
     Man detained by the State of Wisconsin as a sexually violent person failed to show that he was provided with constitutionally inadequate mental health treatment. He failed to show that decisions about his treatment were either made by unqualified personnel or that his treatment was "outside the bounds" of acceptable professional judgment. Williams v. Nelson, No. 04-C-774C, 398 F. Supp. 2d 977 (W.D. Wis. 2005). [N/R]
     Connecticut prisoner's allegation that his meetings with mental health staff at the prison were conducted on the cell tier, within the hearing of other inmates, adequately stated a possible claim for violation of his right to privacy concerning his mental health issues under federal and state law. Hunnicutt v. Armstrong, No. 04-1565, 152 Fed. Appx. 34 (2nd Cir. 2005). [N/R]
     In lawsuit claiming that county failed to provide adequate medical care to mentally ill prisoners, a report by a consulting expert retained by the county to evaluate health services and programs at the county's jails was not protected from discovery under the work products doctrine protecting materials prepared in anticipation of litigation. The expert was not asked to investigate any particular claims but rather to help the county develop long range planning and analysis of its health care needs. There was no evidence that the county's outside litigation attorney was involved in or directed the preparation of the report. Mims v. Dallas County, No. 3-04-CV-2754, 230 F.R.D. 479 (N.D. Tex. 2005). [N/R]
     Detainee suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, acute psychosis, impulse-control disorder, and "polysubstance abuse" could not assert disability discrimination claims since his impairments, because they could be corrected "or mitigated" by medication, did not constitute disabilities. Jail personnel did not use excessive force in using pepper spray to subdue him when he actively resisted his transfer to a hospital for treatment, and did not violate his right to receive adequate medical attention. Atwell v. Hart County, Kentucky, No. 03-6421, 122 Fed. Appx. 215 (6th Cir. 2005). [2005 JB Dec]
    Prison officials did not show deliberate indifference to the serious needs of a mentally ill and suicidal prisoner by failing to provide requested therapeutic art supplies, when they did provide a medical examination and anti-psychotic medications. Scarver v. Litscher, No.01C497, 371 S. Supp. 2d 986 (W.D. Wis. 2005). [N/R]
     Mere three-day delay between the date a prisoner was incarcerated in a county jail and the date she was seen by a psychiatrist did not establish deliberate indifference by the County or its Commissioner to her serious medical needs. Evidence in the record showed that she was seen by mental health personnel whenever she requested, and that problems with her medication were remedied as soon as those problems were brought to the attention of medical personnel. Atkins v. County of Orange, No. 01CIV.11536, 372 F. Supp. 2d 377 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). [N/R]
     A jail doctor's decision not to put a pre-trial detainee on psychiatric medications after he attempted to swallow a razor blade was not deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. The doctor made a medical determination that the detainee was not psychotic, and had him placed in segregation and under close monitoring and supervision by the jail's mental health personnel. Edmonds v. Horton, No. 03-6031, 113 Fed. Appx. 62 (6th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
     Federal trial court applied the wrong legal standard in denying certification of a class action lawsuit challenging the alleged denial of access to mental health care at a county jail. Shook v. El Paso County, No. 03-1397, 386 F.3d 963 (10th Cir. 2004). [2005 JB Jan]
     Statements by state prison psychologist to mentally ill prisoner who made suicidal threats that no one would care if he died did not constitute deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, when psychologist also recommended that the prisoner remain under observation, and the prisoner had access to other psychologists at the prison, as well as to a psychiatrist to whom he had been referred. Means v. Cullen, 297 F. Supp. 1148 (W.D. Wis. 2003). [N/R]
     Private psychiatric hospital and not-for-profit company which owned it were not immune under Tennessee law for potential liability for county jail inmate's suicide on the basis of their employee's alleged action in telling county jail that suicide protocol precautions were not necessary for this prisoner. Employee also qualified as a "state employee" because of his service in screening prisoners to determine if hospitalization was appropriate, and as a state employee, he was entitled to statutory immunity, but this did not alter the result as to the hospital or its owner. Shelburne v. Frontier Health, 126 S.W.3d 838 (Tenn. 2003). [N/R]
     Psychiatrist was entitled to summary judgment on prisoner's claim against him alleging unjustified forced administration of anti-psychotic drugs and excessive doses of one such drug, causing memory loss, headaches, twitching, and confusion. Prisoner failed to properly present expert testimony or other medical evidence sufficient to establish a claim of deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, or that the psychiatrist had subjective knowledge that there was an excessive risk to the prisoner's health and that the psychiatrist then failed to act on the basis of that knowledge. Roberson v. Goodman, 293 F. Supp. 2d 1075 (D.N.D. 2003). [N/R]
     California Supreme Court rules that mentally ill inmates, placed in mental institutions after the conclusion of their sentences, may not be forced to take anti-psychotic drugs unless they are found to be an immediate danger to themselves or others or incompetent to refuse treatment. In re Qawi, No. S100099, 2004 Cal. LEXIS 1, 7 Cal. Rptr. 3d 780, 81 P.3d 224. [2004 JB Feb]
     Plaintiff failed to show that county had a policy of deliberate indifference in training correctional officers in the handling of mentally ill detainees, or that any such inadequacy in county's training caused detainee's death. No liability for county for the death of detainee from heart failure while incarcerated. Carey v. Helton, No. 01-5623, 70 Fed. Appx. 291 (6th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
     Prisoners asserting claims against county and sheriff for alleged systemic violations of their rights as persons with "serious mental health needs" were not required to exhaust available administrative remedies before filing suit when there was "no available administrative remedies" that the plaintiffs could have used for relief. Shook v. Bd. of County Commissioners of the County of El Paso, 216 F.R.D. 644 (D. Colo. 2003). [N/R]
     Mentally ill county jail inmates could not pursue their claims for disability discrimination against the county and county officials for alleged degrading treatment. They failed to show that they were denied the benefits of any services, program or activity of the jail, or that violent and self-destructive inmates who were mentally ill were treated any differently than violent and self-destructive inmates not suffering from a mental illness. Atkins v. County of Orange, 251 F. Supp. 2d 1225 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). [2003 JB Aug]
     Montana Supreme Court finds that prison's practice of subjecting certain inmates to behavior modification plans, along with the living conditions in the areas where such inmates were housed, violated the state constitutional right to "human dignity" of mentally ill prisoner and represented cruel and unusual punishment, especially when used as a substitute for medical treatment for disruptive and suicidal prisoner. Walker v. State of Montana, #01-528, 68 P.3d 872 (Mont. 2003). [2003 JB Aug]
    Federal appeals court establishes legal standard for medicating criminal defendants involuntarily to enable them to be competent for trial. United States v. Gomes, No. 01-1143, 289 F.3d 71 (2nd Cir. 2002). [2002 JB Oct]
     Widow of manic depressive detainee who suffered a heart attack and died while in custody could pursue claim that county policy of delaying medical screening of combative inmates constituted a substantial risk of serious harm to the decedent. Gibson v. County of Washoe, Nevada, #99-17338, 290 F.3d 1175 (9th Cir. 2002). [2002 JB Oct]
     Prisoner's mental health disorder, diagnosed as bipolar disorder, was sufficiently serious so that deliberate indifference to his resulting medical needs, including anxiety he allegedly suffered due to a lack of medication review, would violate the Eighth Amendment. Further proceedings ordered as to whether manager of counseling treatment services purposefully misdiagnosed prisoner's mental illness or denied medication review. Page v. Norvell, 186 F. Supp. 2d 1134 (D. Ore. 2000). [N/R]
     Federal trial court prohibits housing of seriously mentally ill inmates at "super-maximum" security state prison, based on claim that conditions there, as applied to the mentally ill, amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. Jones 'El v. Berge, #00-C-421-C, 164 F. Supp. 2d 1096 (W.D. Wis. 2001). [2002 JB Apr]
     290:22 Mentally ill prisoners in New York City jails are entitled, under state law, to help in obtaining continuing treatment on their discharge; trial court issues preliminary injunction requiring discharge planning for such prisoners. Brad v. City of New York, 712 N.Y.S.2d (Sup. 2000).
     278:24 New Jersey reaches wide-ranging $16 million settlement in lawsuit over allegedly inadequate treatment of mentally-ill prisoners and disability discrimination against them; plaintiffs' attorneys to receive $1.22 million in attorneys' fees; disciplinary policies to take prisoners' mental illness into account; all new prisoners to receive mental health assessment within 72 hours. D.M. v. Terhune, 67 F. Supp. 2d 401 (D.N.J. 1999).
     [N/R] Pretrial detainee who was incompetent to stand trial could immediately appeal administrative order permitting medical personnel to forcibly administer anti- psychotic medication, but was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing before the district court when administrative proceeding complied with due process. U.S. v. Morgan, No. 99-6245, 193 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. 1999).