Opinion ID: 778366
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Punishment of Prisoners for Self-Harm Events

Text: 71 Plaintiffs next argue that Defendants punish prisoners who are mentally ill for self-harm behavior over which the prisoners have no control and that Defendants punish them without any penological purpose. The district court disagreed as a matter of fact. The court found that many of the prisoners who engage in self-harm have mixed motivations for hurting themselves: It would be a mistake to conclude that all such behavior is attributable to manipulation on the part of the inmates. But it would also be a mistake to conclude that manipulation is not often a part of the individual inmate's agenda. Citing examples of such manipulation, the court found that the sanctions imposed by Defendants are a reasonable and moderate response to self harm incidents and that they are designed to attempt to discourage and deter such behavior, which is a legitimate penological goal. 72 Although several of the experts whose opinions appear in the record did not agree with those determinations, there is sufficient support in the record to justify the court's findings. Therefore, the present action is distinguishable from those decisions on which Plaintiffs rely. See, e.g., Coleman v. Wilson, 912 F.Supp. 1282, 1320-21 (E.D.Cal.1995); Casey v. Lewis, 834 F.Supp. 1477, 1529-34, 1550 (D.Ariz. 1993); Arnold v. Lewis, 803 F.Supp. 246, 249-51 (D.Ariz.1992). Inmates at the Prison are not being treated with punitive measures by the custody staff to control the inmates' behavior without regard to the cause of the behavior, the efficacy of such measures, or the impact of those measures on the inmates' mental illnesses. Coleman, 912 F.Supp. at 1320. To the contrary, the sanctions for self-harm are minor, are designed to deter dangerous — and sometimes even deadly — behavior, and are often cleared through the Prison's psychiatrist before imposition. 5 Additionally, the regulation pursuant to which these sanctions are administered requires the hearings officer to consider the inmate's mental health and his/her intellectual, emotional, and maturity levels and what effect a particular sanction might have on the inmate in light of such factors. Wash. Admin. Code § 137-28-360. 73 Thus, Plaintiffs failed to prove that Defendants' practice of sanctioning inmates for self-harm constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.