Perry v. Sims

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendants-prison officials' motion for summary judgment in plaintiff-prisoner's section 1983 action, alleging that defendants violated plaintiff's 8^th Amendment rights by forcibly injecting him with antipsychotic drug Haldol to treat his mental conditions. Prison's Review Committee could properly have determined that involuntary administration of Haldol was in plaintiff best interests, where plaintiff had previously refused food and medications, threatened suicide and had history of violence during episodes of intense paranoia. While defendant asserted that defendants prescribed course of Haldol injections knowing that he was allergic to said medicine, plaintiff failed to support said contention with any medical evidence, and any side effects of Haldol were common effects that did not constitute excessive risk to plaintiff's health.  Also, defendants monitored plaintiff's condition, such that plaintiff could not establish that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs, where plaintiff had demonstrated that he was danger to himself. Too, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying plaintiff's requests for assistance of counsel, where, although plaintiff had mental condition, Dist. Ct. could have properly found that: (1) plaintiff's claims were not so complex so as to require assistance of counsel; (2) plaintiff demonstrated that he understood facts of his case and marshaled said facts into coherent arguments; and (3) presence of counsel would not have made difference in outcome of case.