Opinion ID: 778366
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Use of Force on Mentally Ill Prisoners

Text: 74 Next, Plaintiffs assert that members of the Prison's staff use force, including pepper spray, on prisoners instead of employing appropriate mental health interventions. We will first address the contentions concerning pepper spray and then consider Plaintiffs' other allegations of force. 75 The district court found that the institution does not inappropriately rely on pepper spray as a means of controlling inmates. It noted that 76 the evidence before the Court is that pepper spray has been used on one occasion. 6 That occasion was videotaped and a copy of the tape is in evidence. The Court has examined the evidence adduced by the parties as to this singular use of pepper spray, and concludes that its use was not inappropriate on this occasion. 77 The court also ruled that Defendants' general policies on the use of pepper spray are constitutional. The court found that Defendants had authorized the use of pepper spray approximately 20 times, yet it had actually been used only once; that staff are properly trained in the use of pepper spray; and that staff may not employ it without first being personally subjected to it. Further, the court found that 78 use of pepper spray is carefully considered in advance of its authorization, restricted and confined for limited purposes, and used only very sparingly. Although professionals disagree with respect to the appropriateness of using pepper spray for managing the behavior of mentally ill inmates, [the Prison's] approach to its use does not seem to be unreasonable. 79 The district court's findings are supported by the record and its conclusions are therefore permissible. 7 80 With respect to Defendants' use of other forms of force, the district court found that the use of force in controlling inmates with mental health problems ... is [not] being misused at [the Prison.] Staff testified that force is used as a last resort, and that when it is used the incident is videotaped. The court concluded that [n]one of the tapes or the testimony presented at the hearing establishes or even strongly suggests that force is being misused. Plaintiffs point to a handful of incidents in which force was used on mentally ill prisoners in the absence of consultations with mental health staff. However, Plaintiffs did not show that such incidents were commonplace or that Prison officials were deliberately indifferent in any of these incidents. Thus, Plaintiffs have not established a violation of their constitutional rights.