Source: https://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=405&amp;search=
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 11:54:55+00:00

Document:
On November 14, 1991, a female inmate incarcerated by the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADOC) filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 against Perryville Prison and ADOC in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Phoenix Division. The plaintiff and the plaintiff's guardian ad litem, represented by the Arizona Center for Disability Law, asked the court for declaratory and injunctive relief enjoining the defendants from transferring the plaintiff, alleging that the prison officials' deliberate indifference to mental health needs was unconstitutional in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
On November 14, 1991, the District Court (Judge Carl A. Muecke) issued a temporary restraining order, enjoining the defendants from transferring the plaintiff from the Flamenco unit at Perryville Prison anywhere but to Arizona State Hospital (ASH) and enjoining the defendants from placing the plaintiff in lock down, isolation, seclusion, or in restraints for any reason while she remained at the Flamenco unit.
After a November 19, 1991, hearing on the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, the parties agreed to a stipulated preliminary injunction and began settlement negotiations. Apparently the settlement negotiations failed, and at a November 25, 1991, hearing, the District Court (Judge Muecke) ordered the temporary restraining order to remain in effect. On December 2, 1991, Judge Muecke issued another temporary restraining order.
Hearings continued during which several defendants were dismissed and several of the plaintiff's allegations dismissed.
On September 3, 1992, the District Court (Judge Muecke) granted a permanent injunction enjoining the prison officials from transferring the plaintiff from the Flamenco unit to the Santa Maria Unit at Perryville Prison and enjoining the prison officials from placing the plaintiff in lock down as punishment for behavior that resulted from her mental illness. Arnold v. Lewis, 803 F. Supp. 246 (D. Ariz. 1992). Judge Muecke found that the prison officials (a) neglected to treat the plaintiff's mental illness by placing her in lock down as punishment for behavior resulting from her mental illness, and by failing to provide psychiatric follow-up for her while she was locked down, (b) failed to monitor the plaintiff's medication, (c) failed to transfer the plaintiff to ASH when necessary for treatment. Further, Judge Muecke consolidated this case with Casey v. Lewis, PC-AZ-0004, Hook v. Arizona, PC-AZ-0006, and Gluth v. Arizona, PC-AZ-0011.
On November 18, 1994, the District Court (Judge Muecke) appointed a special master to formulate the injunctive relief.
On October 17, 1995, the District Court (Judge David Alan Ezra), ruling on the consolidated cases, granted the plaintiffs' motions to hold the Director of ADOC in contempt, found unconstitutional an Arizona law excepting the State from paying Special Masters, and denied the defendants' motions to modify. Hook v. Arizona, 907 F. Supp. 1326 (D. Ariz. 1995). The defendants appealed.
On February 27, 1997, as amended on April 22, 1997, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (Judge Thompson) affirmed the District Court's October 17, 1995, ruling. Hook v. Arizona, 107 F.3d 1397 (9th Cir. 1997). The Court found that the supremacy clause precluded application of the state statute, that the Eleventh Amendment did not prohibit the court from ordering state to pay the special masters, that the state statute did not make it impossible for the Director of ADOC to comply with the decree and that the District Court's imposition of a fine was not an abuse of discretion.
We have no information on the Special Master's findings, and no more information on this case.

References: § 1983
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.