2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Third C irc uit 3-3-2009 

# Aruanno v . Gl azm an P re c e de nt i al or N on-P re c e de nt i al : N on-P re c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-2543

F o llow thi s and a ddit ion al works at : http://di git alc ommon s .l a w . vill anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s brou ght t o you for f re e and ope n a c c e s s by the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Third C irc uit at V ill anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s by an authori z e d a dmini s trat or of V ill anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or more inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vill anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Aruanno v . Gl azm an" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1792. http://di git alc ommon s .l a

w . vill anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2009/1792NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_________ N o. 07- 2543

_________

J OS E P H AR UANNO ,

A p p e llan t, v. DR. LYUDM I LA GLAZ M AN, Dr . R. DAV I D PARR I S H, J OSE P H KN OW LE S , DR. N E A L B R A N D O F F , D R . R O B E R T R O T H , a n d D R . W A Y N E B L O D G E T T , A p p e lle e s .

___________________ A p p e a l fro m th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f orthe D i s tr i ctof

N ew J er s ey C as e N o. 03- C V - 03696 (H o n o rab le G arrettE . B row n , Jr. )

__________________ A r gued D ece m ber10, 2008 Before: McKEE, SMITH, and ROTH, C i r cui tJudges .

Filed: Mar ch 3, 20092

T h o ma s E . S c h o rr , E s q . ( AR GUE D) Smi th , Str a t t o n , W i s e , Heh e r& Br e n n a n , LLP 2 R es ear ch W ay Pr i ncet on, N J 08540 A t t or ney f

orP et i t i oner S t e p h e n D. Ho l t z ma n , E s q . ( AR GUE D) Ho l t z ma n & M c Cl a i n , P . C. 524 M apl e A venue, Sui t e 200 L i nw ood, N J 08221 T h o m a s E . K e m b le , E s q . D eputy A t t orney G ener al of N ew J er s ey R . D avi d Parr i s h and J os eph R . J . H ughes J us t i ce Com pl ex P. O . B ox 112, 25 M arketSt r eet T r ent on, N J 08625 A tto rn e y s fo r R e sp o n d e n ts

OPINION OF T HE COURT M cK ee, C i r cui tJ udge. J os eph A ruanno appe al s the or derof the di s tr i ctcourtgr ant i ng s um m ary j udgm ent t o eac h gr oup of

def endant s on the s ui the i ns t i tut ed pur s uantt o 42 U . S. C . § 1983. T he def endant s i ncl ude l i cens ed ps ychi atr i s t s and mem ber s of T r eatm entR evi ew C om m i t t ees i n tw o s t at e pr i s ons . Forthe r eas ons thatf ol l ow , w e w i l l af

f i rm , al though w e do s o on a d iffe re n t b a sis th a n th a t re lied o n b y th e d istric t co u rt. I. B eca us e w e w r i t e pr i m ar i l y f orthe part i es , w e nee d notr eci t e the f act s or3

p ro c e d u ra l b a c k g ro u n d o f t h is c a s e e x c e p t in s o fa r a s m a y b e h e lp fu l to o u r d is c u s s io n . A rua n n o m aintains that there w as n o t a su ffi cien t m ed ical ba sis f o r B ran d o ff’ s i ni t i al deci s i on t o pr es cr i be ant i ps ychot i c drugs , orf orl at erdeci s i ons , i nvol vi ng the re m a in in g a p p e llee s, to c o n tin u e o r re n e w th is lin e o f tre a tm e n t. H e c o n ten d s th a t h is s w orn t es t i m ony aboutr et al i at i on f orper s i s t i ng i n l i t i gat i on agai ns tthe N ew J er s ey D epartm entof

C orr ect i ons ( “N J D O C ”) , t ogetherw i th hi s ext ens i ve medi cal r ecor ds and the dec i s i ons of

var i ous tr eat i ng ps ychi atr i s t s , r ai s e genui ne i s s ues of m at er i al f

actthat p re c lu d e s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t f o r t h e d e fe n d a n ts .

II. W e h av e a p p ell ate jurisdicti o n p u rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 an d ex erc ise p lena ry re v ie w o f t h e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s a w a rd o f s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. A br am s on v. W i l l i am P a terso n C o ll. , 260 F. 3d 265, 276 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . W e appl y the s ame st andar d thatthe d is tr ic t c o u rts h o u ld h a v e a p p lie d . Far r el lv. P lant ers Li f es aver s C o. , 206 F. 3d 271, 278 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 0 ). S u m m a ry ju d g m e n t is a p p ro p ria tely a w a rd e d “ a g a in st a p a rty w h o fa ils to m ak e a sh o w ing su ffi cien t t o estab li sh the e x ist en ce o f an elem en t essen ti al t o that p arty’s cas e and on w hi ch thatparty w i l l bearthe bur den of pr oof attr i al . ” C elot ex Corp. v. C a tre tt , 477 U . S. 317, 322 ( 1986) . W e, of cour s e, dr aw al l i nf

er ence s f r om the u n d e rl y in g fa c ts in th e lig h t m o s t f a v o ra b le to th e n o n -m o v in g p a rt y . P enns ylvani a C oal A ss ’n v . B a b b itt , 6 3 F .3 d 2 3 1 , 2 3 6 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 5 ). T h e d is tr ic t c o u rtg ro u n d e d its a n a ly s is in s u b s ta n tiv e d u e p ro c e s s . See A r uanno v. G laz m an , 2007 W L 1221113, at*6 ( D . N . J . , A pr . 20, 2007) . I n anal yzi ng the s i gni f i cant4

lib e rty in ter e st in a v o id in g u n w a n ted a d m in istra tio n o f a n tip sy c h o tic d ru g s id e n tified in W as hi ngt on v. H

ar per , 494 U . S. 210, 221- 22 ( 1990) , the di s tr i ctcourtal s o not ed the l i m i t s of the r i ghtt o r ef

us e tr eatm ent . “[ A ] pr i s on m ay compel a pr i s onert o acc ept tre a tm e n t w h e n p riso n o ffic ials , in th e e x e rc ise o f p ro fe ss io n a l ju d g m e n t, de e m it nece s s ary t o carry outval i d m edi cal orpenol ogi cal obj ect i ves . ” W hi t e v. N apol eon , 897 F .2 d 1 0 3 , 1 1 3 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 0 ). A c c o rd in g ly , the d e c isio n o f a m e d ica l p ro fe ss io n a l to f or ce medi cat e a pr i s oneri s pr es um ed val i d, "unl es s i ti s s how n t o be s uch a s ubs t ant i al d e p a rtu re fro m a c c e p ted p ro fe ss io n a l ju d g m e n t, pr a c tice o r sta n d a rd s a s to d e m o n stra te th a t th e p e rs o n re s p o n s ib le a c tu a lly d id n o t b a s e th e d e c is io n o n s u c h ju d g m e n t." Id . T h e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t p ro h ib its th e u n n e c e ss a ry a n d w a n to n in flictio n o f p a in re s u ltin g fr o m d e lib e ra te in d if fe re n c e to a p ri s o n e r’ s s e ri o u s m e d ic a l n e e d . Es t el l e v. G a m b le , 42 9 U . S . 97 , 10 4 (197 6). T o d em on strat e deli berat e i nd i ff erence, A ruanno m ust sh o w th a t th e a p p e llee s p o ss e ss e d a su b jec tiv e a p p re c iatio n o f a n e x c e ss iv e risk to h is s a fe ty , a n d n e v e rt h e le s s c h o s e to d is re g a rd th a t r is k . Far m erv. B r ennan , 511 U . S. 825, 8 3 7 -38 (19 9 4 ). A rua n n o co n tend s tha t, g iven the a b sen ce o f ev iden ce that h e w o u ld h arm h im s e lf o r o th e rs , fo rc e d m e d ic a tio n w a s u n w a rr a n te d . T hus , w hetherw e vi ew hi s cl ai m as an Ei ghth A m endmentcl ai m bas ed on the p r o h i b i t i o n a g a i n s tc ru e l a n d u n u s u a l p u n i s h me n t , o ra s a s u b s t a n t i v e d u e p r o c e s s c l a i m, A rua n n o ca n n o t surv ive th e d efe n d an ts’ m o ti o n for su m m ary jud g m en t abs en t exp ert t es t i m ony thatw oul d di s put e the def endant s ’ as s ert i ons thatthe tr eatm enthe r ece i ved w as m edi cal l y nece s s ary. Si nce A ruanno’ s A m ended Com pl ai ntand hi s ar gum ent s on appea l5

me n t i o n o n l y h i s Ei g h th Ame n d me n tc l a i ms , o u ra n a l y s i s wi l l b e f o c u s e d o n th a tc l a i m. H ow ever , w e w oul d r eac h the s ame r es ul ti f w e vi ew ed thi s as a cl ai m f ordeni al of s u b s ta n tiv e d u e p ro c e s s a s th e d is tr ic t c o u rtd id . I n B or i ng v. Koz aki ew i cz , 8 3 3 F . 2 d 4 6 8 ( 3 d C i r . 1 9 8 7 ) , w e h e l d th a ta p r i s o n e r 's E i ghth A m endmentcl ai m of del i ber at e i ndi f

f er ence t o a s er i ous m edi cal need r equi r es expertt es t i m ony w hen the s er i ous nes s of i nj ury ori l l nes s w oul d notbe appa r entt o a l ay p e rs o n . Id . at473- 74. I n Mont om er y v. P i nchak , 294 F. 3d 492 ( 3d C i r . 2002) , w e f ur ther hi ghl i ght ed the i nher entchal l enges thatar i s e f r om a l i t i gantatt empt i ng t o pr ovi de hi s /her ow n expl anat i on of

compl i cat ed medi cal s ym pt om s , cons equenc es , and tr eatm ent d e c is io n s . Id . at504 ( ci t i ng the di f f er ence s betw een w i tnes s t es t i m ony abouta br oken l eg ora bul l etw ound ver s us the ef f ect s of heartf ai l ur e and H I V m edi cat i on) . M edi cal t es t i m ony i s neede d i n s uch ca s es t o as s i s tthe f act f i nderi n under s t andi ng the ca s e and a s s e s s in g th e q u a lity o f m e d ic a l c a re re c e iv e d . A ru a n n o ’s c a se e n c o m p a ss e s a lm o st 2 ,0 0 0 p a g e s o f c o m p lex p sy c h iatric o b se rv a tio n s a n d th e o p in io n s o f d o z e n s o f m e d ica l p ro fe ss io n a ls o v e r se v e ra l y e a rs. It is i nconce i vabl e thata l ayper s on coul d eval uat e thi s cas e w i thoutexpertgui dance . T he d istri ct co u rtad d resse d that co n ce rn b y au tho ri zing the fu n d s req u ir ed for A rua n n o to h ir e a n e x p e rt w h o c o u ld e v a lu a te th e m e d ica l ev id e n c e in th is c a se . A ru a n n o w a s c e rta in ly w ith in h is r igh t no t t o u se th e e x p ert th at w as a u tho ri ze d ; bu t his fai lure to u se a n y ex p ert l eave s a f

at al voi d i n hi s cas e thatcan notbe over come w i th onl y hi s s w orn s t at ement a b o u t th re a ts fr o m p ri s o n o ff ic ia ls .6

M or eover , the r ecor d r evea l s an ef f or ton the partof

hi s tr eat i ng ps ychi atr i s t s t o be r es pons i ve t o hi s r eac t i ons t o hi s m edi cat i on w her e pos s i bl e. O n num er ous occa s i ons s i nce the i ni t i al Sept ember2002 or der , the dos e of hi s pr es cr i pt i on f

orR i s per dal w as l ow er ed; i tw as al s o of

f er ed w i thoutan addi t i onal ant i depr es s ant , t empora r i l y s ubs t i tut ed w i th anotherdrug, and eve ntual l y di s cont i nued. T he medi cal bas i s f oreac h deci s i on, a lo n g w ith A ru a n n o ’s p h y sic a l an d m e n tal re sp o n se s to th e c h a n g e s, w e re c a re fu lly document ed. W hi l e i tm ay be theor et i cal l y pos s i bl e thats uch j udgm ent s s om ehow re su lted fro m d e lib e ra te in d iffe re n c e , as A ru a n n o a rg u e s, th e re is n o th in g o n th is re c o rd to s uppor tthatcl ai m . I ndeed, the uncha l l enged t es t i m ony of the def endant s i s t o the contr ary. T her ef or e, A ruanno has f

ai l ed t o r ai s e a ge nui ne i s s ue of f actas t o w hetherthe a p p e llee s’ d e c isio n to fo rc ib ly m e d ica te h im c o n stitu ted d e lib e ra te in d iffe re n c e to h is m e d ic a l n e e d s . III . Foral l of

the above r eas ons , w e w i l l af f i rm the or derof

the di s tr i ctcourtgr ant i ng sum m ary j ud gm ent t o the app el l ees.