# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 1- 22 51

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Tim ot hy Green

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

Dav e Dor m ire ; Art hu r W oo d; Bil l Gal lo way ; Dr. Ro be rt E. Ho ll an d; Kay Red di ng , Dep t. o f Men ta l Hea lt h; Depa rtment o f Men ta l Hea lt h o f th e St at e o f Mi ss ou ri; Greg Bo y t, Dep t. o f Men ta l Hea lt h; Sal ly T ay lo r, Dep t. o f Men ta l Hea lt h; All en Heal d, Dep t. o f Men ta l Hea lt h; Ji m Ben ne tt , Dept . of M en ta l Hea lt h; Mari an n Atwel l; Mi ss ou ri De pa rtment o f Co rrec ti on s; Jer ry Dot y ; El li s M cSwai n; W il li am Eik erm an n; Mark W . Sch m it z; Dr. Feli x Vi nc en z; Jo e Ma ng in i; Bru ce Harr y ; S t e p h an ie Sc ott ; K ay Sm ith ; Je an ne H en r y ; D e b r a L e w i s ; D a

v i d S t e p h e n s ; A

. E

. D a

n i e l s

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

Ed Cu ll um

be r; Dr. Gu ll ey ; Dr. Lo eh r; Dr. Ra wlan i; Sh el le y Mo or e

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t s

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - J effe rs on Cit y

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Ju ne 15 , 20 12
Fil ed : Se pt em

be r 4, 2 01 2

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re LOKEN, GRUEND ER, an d B ENTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __BENTON, Circu it Ju dg e.

Tim ot hy Green

, an in m a t e of th e Mi ss ou ri Dep art m en t of Co rrec ti on s, was

tra ns ferr ed fro m th e Je ffer so n C i t y C o rrec ti on al Cen te r (J CCC ) to th e Bi gg s

Co rrec t i o n a l Treat m en t Uni t at th e Fu lt on St at e Hos pi ta l (Bi gg s)

. The re, he was

in vo lu nt ari ly m ed ic at ed

. Green su ed un de r 42 U.S.C. § 19 83

, al le gi ng t h a t h i s

tra ns fer, de te nt io n, an d in vo lu nt ary m ed ic at io n vi ol at ed hi s Due Pro ces s rig ht s. The

di st ric t co ur t gr an t e d s u mm ary jud gm en t to th e de fen da nt pr is on of fic ia ls an d 1

do ct or s. Hav in g ju ris di ct io n u nd er 2 8 U.S.C. § 12 91 , th is co ur t af fir m s.

In Sep te m

be r 20 03

, Green was pl aced in th e ad m in is tra ti ve se gr eg at io n un it at

JC CC fo r two week s. Rel eas ed fro m ad m in is tra ti ve se gr eg at io n, he be ga n to ex hi bi t

de lu si on al be ha vi o r s b a s e d on hi s be li ef th at a de vi ce ha d be en pl an te d in hi s

te le vi si on , al lo win g cel eb rit ie s t o watc h an d co m m un ic at e wit h hi m an d to wear

fas hi on s he de si gn ed wit ho ut hi s pe rm is si on

. Thi s be li ef le d hi m t o w r i te m ul ti pl e
le tt ers to va rio us cel eb rit ie s. Dr. Ro be rt E. Hol la nd di ag no se d Green wit h Delu si on al

Dis or de r an d pr es cri be d m ed ic at io n to tre at it

. Green refu se d to ta ke th e m ed ic at io n
be cau se he di d n ot be li ev e h e h ad de lu si on s.

Due to hi s refu sa l to ta ke m ed ic at io n, Green was m ov ed fro m JC CC to Bi gg s,
whi ch is joi nt ly op erat ed by th e Mi ss ou ri Dep art m en t of Co rrec ti on s an d th e Mi ss ou ri

D ep art m en t of Men ta l Heal th

. Defen da nt Dav e Dor m ire

, th e ch ie f ad m in is tra t i v e

of fic er o f JC CC, d id no t ce rti fy , bef or e th e tr an sf

er, t ha t Gre en ne ed ed tre at m en t.

Green was at Bi g g s fo r 33 da y s. He sa w a nu m be r of m en ta l he al th

pr of es si on al s who ev al ua te d hi m an d crea te d tre at m en t pl an s. One week aft er hi s

arri va l at B i g gs , t he m en ta l he al th st aff, at a tre at m en t he ari ng th at Green at te nd ed

,

The Ho n o r a b l e Nan et te K. Lau gh rey, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e 1

W es te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

-2

-ou tl in ed hi s tre at m en t go al s an d ob je c t iv es

. At th at m eet in g, a co ns ul ti ng

psy ch olo gis t re co m

m en de d tha t G reen ta ke an ti ps y ch ot ic m ed ic at io n. G re en re fu se d. 2

Two da y s la te r, an ot he r he ari ng co nv en ed to de te rm in e whe th er Green sh ou ld

be in vo lu nt ari ly m ed ic at ed

. Att en di ng were a co ns ul ti ng ps y ch ia tri st

, a ps y ch ol og is t,

a ph y si ci an , a so ci al wor ke r, a reg io na l m an ag er of Men ta l H e a l t h Serv ic es , an

as so ci at e su pe ri n t en de nt

, an d Green ’s two la y ad vo cat es

. Green sp ok e du rin g th e
he ari ng

. Oth er at te nd ees as ke d hi m qu es ti on s an d ex pr es se d th ei r op in io ns ab ou t hi s

m en ta l h eal th

.

At th e co nc lu si on of th e he ari ng , a co m m it te e co m

po se d of th e co ns ul ti ng

ps y ch ia tri st

, th e as so ci at e su pe rin te nd en t, an d th e reg io na l m an ag er of Men ta l Heal th

Serv ic es de te rm in ed th at Green was gr av el y di sa bl ed an d no t ab le to fu nc ti on in

pr is on or in th e ge ne ral po pu la ti on wit ho ut co nt ro l of hi s Delu si on al Dis or de r th ro ug h

m ed ic at io n. Thu s, th e co m m it t e e de te rm in ed th at Green req ui red in vo lu nt ary

m ed ic at io n.

Green ap pe al ed

. The Ch ie f of Men ta l Heal th Serv ic es , af t e r r ev ie win g th e
he ari ng reco rd an d Green ’s pr og res s no te s, fo un d it cl in ic al ly ne ces sa ry to ad m in is te r

in vo lu nt ary m ed ic at io n. Gree n was for ci bl y m ed ic at ed for sev en m on th s.

Green su ed

, arg ui ng th at hi s fed eral Due Pro ces s rig ht s were vi ol at ed whe n he

was (1 ) m ov ed fro m JC CC to Bi gg s wit ho ut cert ifi cat io n by th e ward en an d ret ai ne d

f o r mo r e th an 96 ho ur s wit ho ut jud ic ia l cert ifi cat io n (in al le ge d vi ol at io n of a st a t e

st at ut e), an d (2 ) was for ci bl y m ed ic at ed . Green ren ews th es e arg um en ts on ap pe al

.

Ant ip sycho ti c d ru gs , als o k no wn as “ ne ur ol ep ti cs ” o r “ ps y ch ot ro pi c d ru gs ,” 2

are com m on ly us ed to tre at m en ta l di so rd ers , bu t can h av e “ se rio us , ev en fat al

, si de
effe ct s.” Wa sh in gt on v. Ha rp er , 49 4 U.S. 2 10 , 22 9 (1 99 0)

.

-3

-Thi s co ur t rev ie ws de no vo th e di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t,

vi ewin g al l ev id en ce an d dr awin g al l reas on ab le in fere nc es in fav or of th e no nm ov in g pa rty. C

r a w f o r d v

. V an Bur en Co unt

y, Ar k.

, 67 8 F.3 d 66 6, 66 9 (8 th Ci r.

20 12 ). Su m

m ary jud gm en t is pr op er if th ere is no ge nu in e is su e of m at eri al fact an d

th e m ov in g pa rty i s en ti tl ed to jud gm en t as a m at te r of law. Fed. R. Civ . P. 56( a)

.

I.

The di st ric t co ur t ru le d th at Green ’s tra ns fer di d no t vi ol at e se ct io n 55 2.0 50 .1

RSM o, whi ch pro vi de s:

3

If th e ch ie f ad m in is tra ti ve of fic er of an y co rrec ti on al faci li ty ha s

reas on ab le cau se to be li ev e th a t a n y of fen de r ne ed s care in a m en ta l
ho sp it al

, he sh al l s o c e r ti fy to th e di vi si on of cl as si fic at io n an d

tre at m en t, whi ch sh al l t h e n t ran sf er th e of fen de r to a st at e m en ta l
ho sp it al fo r cu st od y , care an d tre at m en t. The ho sp it al may d et ai n an d

tre at th e o ffen de r fo r a p eri od of t im e n ot to ex ceed ni ne ty-si x h ou rs

.

Afte r th e 96 -h ou r pe rio d en ds

, “ th e of fen de r sh al l be ret ur ne d to a co rrec ti on al faci li ty

de si gn at ed by th e de pa rtment of co rrec ti on s un le ss th e in di vi du al ad m it s hi m se lf as

a vo lu nt ary pa ti en t or th e m en ta l he al th co or di na to r or he ad o f th e faci li ty fil es fo r

in vo lu nt ary de te nt io n an d t r e a t men t

. . . .” § 55 2.0 50 .1 RSMo

. Any co nt in ue d

in vo lu nt ary de te nt io n m

us t co m pl y wit h sect ion 632. 330 RS Mo, w hic h gr an ts sp eci fic
rig ht s to th e de ta in ee. The di st ri c t co ur t fo un d th at Green was no t tra ns ferr ed to a

st at e m en ta l ho sp it al be cau se he “ rem ai ne d in a co rrec ti on al faci li ty at al l ti m es ,” an d

th us th at th e Mi ss ou ri st at ut es “ ne ve r cam e in to pl ay .” At is s u e , h o w e ve r, is no t

whe th er the st at ut es were vi ol at ed bu t rath er wh et he r th e m in im um req ui rem en ts of

Due Pro ces s ar e sa ti sf

ie d.

RSM o re fers to th e Mi ss ou ri R ev is ed Sta tu te s, 2 00 0, as am en de d. 3

-4

-Green arg ue s th at h i s r e l o c a ti on to an d de te nt io n at Bi gg s vi ol at ed a St at ecrea te d li be rty in te res t. “ [S]tat e st at ut es m ay crea te li be rty in te res ts th at are en ti tl ed

to th e pr oc ed ur al pr ot ect io ns of th e Due Pro c e s s C l a u se of th e Fo ur te en th

Am en dm en t.” V

it ek v. Jo nes , 44 5 U.S. 48 0, 48 8 (1 98 0) (“ [O]nce a St at e gr an ts a

pr is on er [a] co nd it io na l lib ert y pr op erl y de pe nd en t on th e ob se rv an ce of spe ci al

. . .

res tri ct io ns , du e pr oc es s pr ot ect io ns at ta ch .”). W he n a li be rty in te res t is pr es en t, th e

m in im um req ui rem en ts o f D u e P r o c es s are es ta bl is he d by fed eral la w, no t by st at e

st at ut e. Id

. at 4 91

.

Tem po rary tra ns fers to m en ta l-h eal th faci li ti es fo r ev al ua ti on do no t gi ve ris e

to th e li be rty int eres t p ro te ct ed in Vit ek

. Unit ed St at es v. Jo nes , 81 1 F .2d 44 4, 4 48
(8 th Ci r. 19 87 ); Gay v. Turn er , 99 4 F.2 d 4 2 5

, 4 2 7 ( 8t h Ci r. 19 93 ) (p er cu ria m );

Tra pn el l v. Ra ls to n , 81 9 F.2 d 18 2, 18 4- 85 (8 th Ci r. 19 87 ). Vit ek ad dr es se d a st at ut e

au th or iz in g th e “ in de fin it e co m m it m en t” of an in m at e to a m en ta l-h eal th faci li ty.

Jo nes , 81 1 F.2 d at 44 8. “ Thu s, th e c o u r t ’s r e l i a n ce on th e st ig m a at ta ch ed to a

co m m it m en t an d th e be ha vi or al m od ifi c a t io n pr oc ed ur es ut il iz ed at th e faci li ty, on
whi ch th e co ur t su bs ta nt ia ll y re l i e d in fin di ng a pr ot ect ed li be rty in te res t, ha s no

ap pl ic at io n to [a cas e co nc ern in g a te m po rary tra ns fer fo r ev al ua ti on ]. ” Id

. Oth er

ci rcu it s fo ll ow th is co ur t’s pr eced en t. Se e, e.g

. , Fo rt une v. Bi tn er , 28 5 F. App x. 94 7,

95 0 (3 d Ci r. 20 08 ) (p er cu ria m ) (u np ub li sh ed ); Fa nt v. Fed

. Bur ea u of

Pri so ns , No.

93 -5 05 9, 1 99 3 WL 31 88 88 , at * 1 (D.C . Cir . 19 93 ) (p er cu ria m ) (o rd er).

Green arg ue s th at he was tra ns ferr ed fo r tre at m en t an d no t ev al ua ti on

. Green ’s

be ha vi or req ui red so m e so rt of se gr e g a t i o n, an d pr is on of fic ia ls tra ns ferr ed hi m to

Bi gg s. A te m

po rary tra ns fer to a m en ta l-h eal th faci li ty fo r ev al ua ti on do es no t bu rd en

an in m at e an y m or e th an a pr is o n t r a n s fer fo r ad m in is tra ti ve pu rp os es

. Se e Jo nes , 81 1 F.2 d at 44 8 (d is cu ss in g th e gr eat l e eway gi ve n to pr is on of fic ia ls to tra ns fer

in m at es – ev en in to mo r e r e st ric ti ve co nd it io ns – wit ho ut im pl ic at in g a li be rty

in te res t). Afte r be in g ev al ua te d, Green rec e i v e d su ffi ci en t pr oc es s (in cl ud in g a

tre at m en t he ari n g ) wit hi n se ve n da y s of arri vi ng , an d be fo re an y in vo lu nt ary

-5

-m ed ic at io n. The di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y gr an te d th e de fen da nt s’ m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t as to Green ’s tra ns fer.

II.

Green cl ai m s th at hi s in vo lu nt ary m ed ic at io n vi ol at ed hi s su bs ta nt iv e Due

Pro ces s rig ht s. Pri so ne rs po ss es s “ a si gn ifi can t l i b e r t y in te res t in av oi di ng th e

un wan te d ad m in is tra ti on of an ti ps y ch ot ic dr ug s un de r th e Due Pro ces s Cl au se of th e

Fo ur te en th Am en dm en t.” Wa sh in gt on v. Ha rp er , 49 4 U.S. 2 10 , 22 2 (1 99 0)

.

A.

Green arg ue s th at

, as a ge ne ral pr op os it io n, th e Due Pro ces s Cl au se req ui res

th at he be fo un d da ng ero us be fo re he m ay be in vo lu nt ari ly m ed ic at ed

. The co m m it te e

as se m bl ed fo r th e Due Pro ces s he ari ng co nc lu de d th at Green was “ gr av el y di sa bl ed

to th e ex te nt he wou ld no t be a b l e t o fu nc ti on in pr is on or in th e po pu la ti on up on
rel eas e wit ho ut co nt ro l of hi s de lu si on al di so r d e r

. ” C i ti ng Uni te d St at es v.
McAll is te r , 96 9 F. Su pp

. 12 00

, 12 07 -0 8 (D. Mi nn

. 19 97 ), Green arg ue s th at “ [i]f th e ‘grav el y di sa bl ed ’ la ng u a g e i n th e [Po li cy ] were no t read to req ui re a sh owi ng of

da ng ero us ne ss w ith in the in st it ut io n, th e [Po li cy ] wou ld be un co ns ti tu ti on al un de r th e

Due Pro ces s Cl au se .” True

, Har pe r ’s sp eci fic ho ld in g is th at Due Pro ces s al lo ws an

i nm at e to be tre at ed “ if [h e] is da ng ero us to hi m se lf or ot he rs ” an d (2 ) w h e n “t h e

tre at m en t is in th e in m at e’s m ed ic al in te res t.” Ha rp er , 49 4 U.S. at 22 7. The Har pe r

op in io n do es no t m ak e th es e cri te ria th e on ly ba si s for i nv ol un ta ry m ed ic at io n. Se e

id

. at 22 7 (h ol di ng th at th e “ Due Pro ces s Cl au se pe r mi t s t h e S t a t e to tre at a pr is on

in m at e

. . . wit h an ti ps y ch ot ic dr ug s ag ai ns t hi s wil l” un de r cert ai n ci rcu m st an ces , whi le no t li m it in g tre at m en t to th os e ci rcu m st an ces ). The Su pr e me C o ur t ha s

ex pl ai ne d th a t a n “ ov erri di ng jus ti fic at io n an d a de te rm in at io n of m ed ic al

ap pr op ria te ne ss ” m ay jus ti fy th e fo rced ad m in is tra ti on of “ an ti ps y ch ot ic dru gs on a

co nv ic te d pr is on er.” Ri

gg in s v. Neva da

, 50 4 U.S. 12 7, 13 5 (1 99 2) (in vo lu nt ary

-6

-m ed ic at io n du rin g tri al is pe rm is si bl e whe re “ m ed ic al ly ap pr op ria te an d, co ns id eri ng

le ss in tru si ve al te rn at iv es , es se nt ia l fo r th e sa ke of [a de fen da nt ’s] own sa fet y or th e

sa fet y of o th ers ” (em

ph as is ad de d) ).

In H a r p e r , th e Su pr em e Co ur t al so he ld th at W as hi ng to n’s po li cy fo r th e

in vo lu nt ary m ed ic at io n of in m at es co m po rte d wit h th e req ui rem en ts of Due Pro ces s.

Ha rp er , 49 4 U.S. at 22 7. Tha t po li cy al lo w e d a n i n mate to be su bjec te d to

in vo lu nt ary m ed ic at io n “ if he (1 ) su ffer s fro m a ‘m en ta l di so rd er’ an d (2 ) is ‘grav el y
di sa bl ed ’ or po se s a ‘lik el ih oo d of se rio us ha rm ’ to hi m se lf, ot he rs , or th ei r pr op ert y .”

Id

. at 21 5 (em

ph as is ad de d)

. The di sju nc ti ve de m on st rat es th at “ gr av e l y d i s a b le d”

do es no t in cl ud e da ng ero u s n e s s

. W as hi ng to n’s de fin it io n co nf irms th is ; so m eo ne
who is “ gr av el y di sa bl ed ” m ay “ m an if es t[ ] se ve re de te rio rat io n in ro ut in e fu nc ti on in g

ev id en ced by rep eat ed an d es cal at in g lo ss of co gn it iv e or vo li ti on al co nt ro l ov er hi s

or he r act io ns an d is n o t r e c e i v i n g su ch care as is es se nt ia l fo r hi s or he r he al th or

sa fet y .” Id

. at 2 15 n.3

.

Lik e W as hi ng to n’s po li cy , Mi ss ou r i’s Po li cy al lo ws in vo lu nt ary m ed ic at io n
whe n an in m at e’s “ m en ta l ill ne ss in te rfer es wit h [hi s] fu nc ti on in g in th e in st it ut io n,

y et no im m ed ia te da ng er ex is ts

. Thi s in cl ud es th os e who are gr av el y di sa bl ed or po se

a fu tu re li ke li ho od of ha rm to se lf or ot he rs if tre at m en t is no t in st it ut ed .” (Em ph as is

ad de d)

. Und er Mi ss ou ri’s Po li cy , th e gr av el y di sa bl ed in cl ud e th os e who

, li ke Green

,

are “ th e ps y ch ot ic of

fen de r who ev id en ces de lu si on s, ha ll uc in at io ns or ot he r th ou gh t

di st ur ba nc es ” an d th os e who su ffer fro m “ se v e rel y di m in is he d in st it ut io na l

ad jus tm en t.” Green ne ed on ly be fo un d gr av el y di sa bl ed be fo r e h e m ay be

in vo lu nt ari ly m ed ic at ed

. 4

W hi le da ng ero us ne ss is no t req ui red to co m pl y wit h Har

p e r , G r een ’s 4

da ng ero us ne ss was th e fo cu s of th e co m m it te e’s di sc us si on whe n it m ad e it s de te rm in at io n. Alt ho ug h com m it te e m em be rs be li ev ed Green was no t an im m in en t da ng er, th ey fel t th at hi s “ de lu si on al syste m wil l feed to th at at a la te r ti m e,” tha t he

“ co ul d be co m e a st al ke r,” an d th at he was be gi nn in g to pr ojec t hi s se ns e o f l o s s o f

-7

-B.

Green co nt en ds th at hi s li be rty in te res t in av oi di ng in vo lu nt ary m ed ic at io n was

ex pa nd ed by Mi ss ou ri Dep art m en t of Co rrec ti on s Po li cy IS1 2- 6.1

, an d th at th is

su bs ta nt iv e rig ht was vi ol at ed

. Green cl ai m s th at Po li cy IS1 2- 6.1 al lo w s th e

in vo lu nt ar y a d mini st rat io n of an ti ps y ch ot ic m ed ic at io n on ly whe n, ba se d up on th e

op in io n of a ps y ch ia tri st or a ph y si ci an in co n ju n c t i o n w it h an ot he r m en ta l he al th

pr o f e s s i o n, (1 ) an in m at e’s sym pt om s “ are de te rm in ed to be a cl in ic al em erg en cy ,”

an d (2 ) al te rn at iv e m et ho ds are no t su ffi ci en t or su it ab le

. As de fin ed by Po li cy IS1 2-

6.1 , a “ cl in ic al em erg en cy ” is li m i t e d to “ cas es whe re an of fen de r is de m on st rat in g

sym pt om s of acu te m en ta l di so rd er res ul ti ng in th e of fen d e r be in g co ns id ered

im m in en tl y da ng ero us to se lf or ot he rs .” Green arg ue s th at

, be cau se ne it he r t h e

co m m it te e a s s e mb le d fo r hi s Due Pro ces s he ari ng no r th e ch ie f of m en ta l he al th

se rv ic es fo un d th at a cl in ic al em erg en cy ex is te d, hi s tre at m en t vi ol at es Po li cy IS1 2-

6.1

.

To th e co nt rary, th e Po li cy do es no t li m it in vo lu nt ary m ed ic at io n to a “ cl in ic al

em erg en cy .” The Po li cy al so al lo ws in vo lu nt ary m ed ic at io n in c a se s of “ cl in ic al

n e c e ss it y .” A “ cl in ic al ne ces si ty” oc cu rs whe n “ m en ta l il ln es s in te rfer es wit h [ a n

inm at e’s] fu nc ti on in g in th e in st it ut io n, y et no im m ed ia te da ng er ex is ts

. Thi s in clude s

th os e who are gr av el y di sa bl ed or p os e a fu tu re li ke li ho od of ha rm to se lf or ot he rs

if tre at m en t is no t in st it ut ed ” an d in cl ud es in m at es who ev id en ce “ de lu si on s,

ha ll uc in at io ns or ot he r th ou gh t di st ur ba nc es .” “ Cl in ic al ne ces si ty” was th e ba si s fo r

Green ’s in vo lu nt ary m ed ic at io n.

Green in te rp ret s th e Po li cy ’s la ng ua ge to req ui re a “ cl in ic al em erg en cy ” be fo re

a “ cl in ic al ne ces si ty” al lo ws fo rced med i c a t i o n

. He rel ie s on th e st ru ct ur e of th e

co nt ro l on ot he rs , a si gn th at a lo ss of co nt ro l “ is li ke ly to ha pp en at so m e ti m e.” Se e H a r p e r , 49 4 U.S. at 23 2 (a co ur t sh ou ld no t se co nd -g ue ss th e fin di ng s of tra in ed

m ed ic al pro fes si on al s)

.

-8

-Po li cy , whi ch ou tl i n e s t h e two st an da rd s, pl aces cl in ic al em erg en cy be fo re cl in ic al

ne ces s i t y, a nd st at es : “ W he n th e co nt in ue d in vo lu nt ary ad m in is tra ti on of
[an ti ps y ch ot ic ] m ed ic at io n is a cl in ic al ne ces si t y, a cl in ic al du e pr oc es s he ari ng
sh ou ld oc cu r.” Acco rd in g to Green

, th e wor d “ co nt in ue d” im pl ie s an un in te rru pt ed

ad m in is tra ti on of m ed ic at io n fr om a pr ev io us em erg en cy

.

Green ’s in te rp ret at io n is in co rrec t. The Po li cy se ts fo rth two in de pe nd en t

av en ue s fo r in vo l u n t a r y m ed ic at io n. A cl in ic al em erg en cy oc cu rs whe n an in m at e

po se s an im m in en t th reat to hi m se lf or ot he rs , an d im m ed ia te act io n is req ui red

. The

Po li cy a l lo ws pr is on of

fic ia ls im m ed ia te ly to m ed ic at e th e in m at e, wit ho ut a du e

pr oc es s he ari ng (b as ed on th e op in io n of a ps y ch ia tri st or a ph y si ci an in co nju nc ti on

wit h an ot he r m en ta l he al th pr of es si on al ). Se e Ho

ga n v. Ca rt

er , 85 F.3 d 11 13

, 11 17

- 18 (4 th Ci r. 19 96 ) (en ba nc ) (h ol di ng th at Har pe r al lo ws pr is on of

fic ia ls to di sp en se
wit h m in im

um Due Pro ces s req ui rem en ts du rin g em er ge nc ie s in or de r to inv olu nta ril y
ad m in is te r an ti ps y ch ot ic dr ug s)

. Acco rd in g t o M is so ur i’s Po li cy , on ce th e

“ em erg en cy ha s a b a t e d, [if ] th e ps y ch ia tri st or ph y si ci an be li ev es th at in vo lu nt ary

m ed ic at io n i s s ti ll warran te d, a c li ni cal du e p ro ces s h eari ng sh ou ld be arra ng ed .”

The Po li cy ha s an al te rn at iv e av en ue fo r in vo lu nt ary m ed ic at io n: cl in ic al

ne ces si ty. The Due Pro ces s Cl au se do es no t req ui re th at an in mat e ’s m en ta l st at e

be co m e an emerg en cy be fo re in vo lu nt ary tr eat m en t m ay be im po se d. Se e Ri

gg in s , 50 4 U.S. at 13 5 (h ol di ng th at in m at es m ay be in vo lu nt ari ly m ed ic at ed whe n th ere is

an ov erri di ng jus ti fic at io n)

. The “ cl in ic al ne ces si ty” ap pl ie s to no n- e mer ge nc y
si tu at io ns

. The se t w o st an da rd s refl ect th e Gov ern m en t’s le gi ti m at e in te res t “ in

tre at in g [Gree n] whe re m ed ic al ly ap pr op ria te fo r th e pu rp os e of red uc in g th e da ng er
he po se s,” Har

pe r , 49 4 U.S. at 22 6, an d th e id ea th at “ [t]he ex t e n t of a pr is on er’s
rig ht un de r th e [Du e P r o c e s s ] Cl au se to av oi d th e un wan te d ad m in is tra ti on of

an ti ps y ch ot ic dr ug s m

us t be de fin ed in th e co nt ex t of th e in m at e’s co nf in em en t,” id

.

-9

-at 22 2. Green ’s in vo lu nt ary m ed ic at io n fo r a cl in ic al ne ces si ty di d no t vi ol at e Po li cy

IS1 2- 6.1 , or h is Fo ur te en th Am en dm en t Du e Pro ces s ri gh ts

.

III.

Green ’s rig ht to av oi d in vo lu nt ary m ed ic at io n is pr ot ect ed by mi ni m um

pr oc ed ur al Due Pro ces s req ui rem en ts

. Se e Ha rp er , 49 4 U.S. at 22 8. In W as hi ng to n

v. Har pe r , th e Su pr em e Co ur t he ld th at th e p ro ced ur al pro te ct io ns in W as hi ng to n’s

po li cy fo r th e in vo lu nt ary ad m in is tra ti on of an ti ps y ch ot ic dr ug s m et th e req ui rem en ts

o f D u e P r oc es s. Id

. at 22 8. Tha t po li cy in cl ud ed : (1 ) a he ari ng ; (2 ) a ne ut ral an d

de ta ch ed tri er of fact ; (3 ) no ti ce; (4 ) th e in m at e’s rig ht to be pr es en t at th e ad ve rs ari al

he ari ng ; (5 ) th e in m at e’s rig ht to cro ss -ex am in e wit ne ss es ; an d, (6 ) th e r i g h t to

ap pe al

. Id

. at 22 8, 2 31 , 23 5.

Green ’s pr oc ed ur al rig ht s were no t vi ol at ed

. The Dep art m en t of Co rrec ti on s’

po li cy fo r th e in vo lu nt ary ad m i n i s tra ti on of an ti ps y ch ot ic dr ug s, Po li cy IS1 2- 6.1

cl os el y fo ll ows W as h i n g t o n ’s po li cy ap pr ov ed in Har pe r

. Befo re hi s fo rced

tre at m en t, Green was gi ve n no ti ce of hi s Due Pro ces s he ari ng , was pr es en t at it

, an d

was pe r mi t t e d t o cro ss -ex am in e wit ne ss es

. A ne ut ral de ci si on m ak er m ad e th e
de ci si on , whi ch Green ap pe al ed

.

IV.

In vi ew of th e di sc us si on ab ov e, th is co ur t ne ed no t ad dr es s Green ’s arg um en ts

th at th e di st ric t c o u r t sh ou ld ha ve ap po in te d co un se l fo r hi m , or th at qu al ifi ed

im m un it y do es no t ap pl y

in th is cas e.

**   **  ** ** **

-1 0-The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

-1 1-