ILNews

Ruling: DOC 'indifferent' to mentally ill inmates

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A recent ruling against Indiana prisons is the latest in a wave of federal court judgments finding that treatment of the mentally ill behind bars – in particular, subjecting those inmates to prolonged isolation – is unconstitutionally cruel and unusual.

Judge Tanya Walton Pratt of the District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on Dec. 31 ruled that a lack of basic treatment for mentally ill Indiana Department of Correction inmates held in isolation violates the U.S. Constitution’s Eighth Amendment. She concluded that, in accord with Brown v. Plata, 131 S. Ct. 1910, 1928 (2011), “[a] prison that deprives prisoners of . . . adequate medical care . . . is incompatible with the concept of human dignity.”

“Mentally ill prisoners within the IDOC segregation units are not receiving minimally adequate mental health care in terms of scope, intensity, and duration and the IDOC has been deliberately indifferent,” Walton Pratt wrote. “Based on the facts and law set forth in this Entry, therefore, it is the Court’s conclusion that the treatment of mentally ill prisoners housed in IDOC segregation units and the New Castle Psychiatric Unit, and the failure to provide adequate treatment for such prisoners, violates the Eighth Amendment’s proscription against the imposition of cruel and unusual punishment. The Plaintiffs have met their burden in that respect and are entitled to prevail.”

The case brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana asserted that about half of the 13 suicides at DOC over a recent five-year period were committed by mentally ill inmates held in isolation – a population that accounts for just 6 percent of prisoners.

“Now, unfortunately, the state is in the position of being told what to do” as a result of the court order, said Lindsay Hayes, project director for the Mansfield, Mass.-based National Center on Institutions and Alternatives, who monitored the Indiana case and has advised states facing similar litigation.

California, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are among states in which federal courts have intervened after mentally ill inmates sued as a class over isolation in prison, Hayes said. NCIA has been involved in an advisory or advocacy role in several of those cases.

“The bottom line is, people with serious mental illness housed in isolation for a prolonged period of time, their mental illness only debilitates further, and there’s a higher incident of serious suicide attempts,” he said.

According to a 2006 National Institute of Corrections study, 41.1 percent of inmates nationwide in long-term detention were held in isolation or segregation at the time of their deaths.

The DOC has yet to determine whether it will appeal Walton Pratt’s ruling, in which the judge ordered a conference within 45 days “for the parties to discuss and establish the appropriate development of a remedy.” The case is Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services Commission on behalf of its clients and constituents v. Commissioner, Indiana Department of Correction, 1:08-CV-01317.

“We do what we think is all we can do” to prevent suicides, DOC spokesman Doug Garrison said. “We do have mechanisms in place to monitor those who have exhibited suicidal behavior.” He said it was important to note that mentally ill inmates held in isolation usually are “there for their behavior.” A common reason for placing inmates in isolation is violent behavior directed toward staff, he said.

DOC also is challenged by staff limitations, despite institutional safeguards to prevent suicides. “When you have to react to behavior that’s like that, sometimes it’s difficult in the best circumstance to frustrate someone who’s intent on ending their life,” Garrison said.

ACLU of Indiana Legal Director Ken Falk said during a news conference Jan. 2 that plaintiffs were sympathetic to the challenges DOC staff faces due to budget constraints, and both sides agree the problem is a societal one.

“These people are going to be released,” Falk said, estimating that 90 percent or more of the class of inmates covered by the ruling would be freed eventually. “The question you have to ask yourself as a Hoosier is, do you want someone released who is acutely psychotic?”

“There are a lot of good people at DOC and they like to provide more services than they can,” said Fran Watson, ACLU of Indiana vice president of litigation and a professor at the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law in Indianapolis.

Watson said she expects the state to appeal, but she said, “I also think what’s likely to happen is (the DOC will) take their obligation seriously under the federal court order.

“That said, it’s going to come down to resources,” she said.

Similar cases in New York and Massachusetts, for instance, have resulted in outcomes that required a commitment of resources, Hayes said. He said prison administrators in New York “agreed they need to do a better job of programming for seriously mentally ill,” and settled a federal case.

There, an agreement provided frameworks to identify the seriously mentally ill and to give inmates a level of due process that involves mental health staff when an inmate’s behavior rises to a level that isolation might be warranted.

New York and Massachusetts also have built alternative housing units for the seriously mentally ill or refurbished other facilities for that purpose, Hayes said. The units offer appropriate programming and require a much higher staff-to-inmate ratio, he said. “They’re used as an alternative to (inmate) placement into isolation.”

Hayes said such results, in part, represent an acknowledgement that there is a need to tailor specialized institutional care for the seriously mentally ill as had been common decades ago.

He said DOC can use the ruling to persuade lawmakers to fund appropriate care.

More than 1,600 segregation beds are spread among 14 correctional facilities around the state, including the psychiatric unit at New Castle. According to the ACLU of Indiana, about 450 mentally ill prisoners are being held in isolation, but the ruling will affect hundreds, if not thousands, of inmates across the state.

“It’s one of those problems society puts behind closed doors and you don’t want to look at it because it’s tough,” Watson said.•

ADVERTISEMENT

  • miserable
    A lot of state prisons and jails have miserable conditions. I applaud this decision. Lets do somethign to stop prisoner rape in the bad facilities, too.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT