Printer Friendly

Mental problems (Prisoner).

U.S. District Court


Rogers v. Illinois Dept. of Corrections Spec. Unit 160 F.Supp.2d 972 (N.D.IIL 2001). Present and former civil detainees in state correctional centers brought an action against psychologists who had recommended their confinement as "sexually violent persons" under illinois' Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act (SVPCA). The district court dismissed the claims of the present detainees, noting that they could petition for habeas corpus relief to challenge their current confinement. But the court found that the former detainees asserted a constitutional violation of equal protection by alleging that their own race was a motivating factor for selecting them for confinement from a pool of eligible defendants, insofar as their race related to the race of their victims. The former detainees are all African-American offenders who committed crimes against at least one Caucasian victim. (Sheridan Correctional Center and Joliet Correctional Center, Illinois)

U.S. District Court


Swan v. U.S., 159 F.Supp.2d 1174 (N.D.Cal. 2001). A federal prison inmate brought an action against the United States and a prison staff psychologist alleging they failed to prevent an attack by another inmate, in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants. The court held that the psychologist did not act with deliberate indifference to the inmate's safety and was under no legal duty to disclose the inmate's confidential communications regarding a possible risk of harm from other inmates, or to pursue, on the inmate's behalf, protection that would have required disclosure of the inmate's counseling session statements. The inmate claimed that he provided information prior to the attack to the psychologist, who should have acted to prevent it. (Federal Corrections Institute, Dublin, California)

U.S. District Court



U.S. v. Weston 134 F.Supp.2d 115 (D.D.C. 2001. An appeals court affirmed the decision of the federal Bureau of Prisons to administer antipsychotic medication to a detainee who allegedly killed Capitol police officers. On remand to the district court, the court held that the government would be permitted to treat the defendant involuntarily with such medication because it was appropriate and essential in order to render the defendant non-dangerous based on medical/safety concerns, and to restore the defendant's competency to stand trial. (Federal Correctional Institute, Butner, North Carolina)
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2001, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Publication:Corrections Caselaw Quarterly
Article Type:Brief Article
Geographic Code:1USA
Date:Nov 1, 2001
Previous Article:Medical care.
Next Article:Personnel.

Related Articles
Mental problems (prisoner).
Thompson v. Davis.
Singleton v. Norris.
Singleton v. Norris.
Singleton v. Norris.
Singleton v. Norris.
Gates v. Cook.
Colton v. Ashcroft.
Medical care.
Mental problems (Prisoner).

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2020 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters