Opinion ID: 182759
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Diaz's Re-Admission to Springfield Medical Center

Text: On May 21, 2009, Diaz was re-admitted to Springfield medical center. On May 27, 2009, he received advance written notice that a Due Process Involuntary Medication Hearing would be held on June 3, 2009. After a hearing, Dr. Carlos Tomelleri concluded that he could not approve involuntary medication because Diaz was not likely to cause harm to himself or others. Dr. Tomelleri's report stated that: (1) Diaz said that he was not mentally ill and did not wish to consider treatment with psychotropic medication; (2) since Diaz's admission to Springfield medical center, Diaz has refused psychological testing, [and] has refused to attend required orientation proceedings; and (3) psychotherapy and similar options would be futile. Dr. Tomelleri's report recommended a treatment of psychotropic medication, which would have a substantial probability of restoring Diaz to competency to proceed with his legal case. However, given that Diaz did not pose a danger to himself or to others, the BOP could not involuntarily medicate Diaz without a court order. The district court next scheduled a hearing pursuant to the Supreme Court's decision in Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166, 123 S.Ct. 2174, 156 L.Ed.2d 197 (2003), which addressed involuntary medication for the sole purpose of rendering a defendant competent to stand trial. [3] Sell laid out these four standards the government must satisfy for involuntary medication to render a defendant competent to stand trial: (1) important government interests must be at stake, (2) involuntary medication must significantly further the state interests in assuring a fair and timely trial, (3) involuntary medication must be necessary to further the state interests, and (4) administration of the medication must be  medically appropriate, i.e., in the patient's best medical interest in light of his medical condition. Id. at 180-81, 123 S.Ct. at 2184-85. Because this appeal turns largely on whether the district court erred in finding the government satisfied two of these factors, we review in great detail the evidence at the Sell hearing.