Beall v. State Of Maryland et al, No. 8:2015cv02180 - Document 15 (D. Md. 2016)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 8/22/2016. (c/m 8/23/2016 aos, Deputy Clerk)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Beall v. State Of Maryland et al Doc. 15 FILED U S. DISTRICT COUilT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COU~l1RICT OF MARYLAND FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND Southern I>ivision ZOlh AUG22 P lj: 02 * RICHARD HOWARI> BEALL, .JR, ri- RY_ ... * Petitioner, * Case No.: G.JH-15-2I1W v. * STATE OF MARYLAND, et :II., * Defendants. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * MEMORANDUM OPINION On July 24. 2014. pro se litigant Richard Howard Beall. Jr.. liled this hybrid Petition fill" Writ of Habeas Corpus and Complaint administration Also pending of medication is Beall's Respondents. pursuant to 42 U.S.c. * 1983. objecting and seeking his release from eonlinement to lill"ced and damages. ECF No. I. Motion for a Court Date. ECF No. 11. the State of Maryland. Clilion T. Perkins Ilospital Center. Khalid 1:1- Sayed. M.D .. and David l!elsel. M,D. tiled a Motion to Dismiss the hybrid Petition and Complaint affidavit lor I~lilure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. supported and exhibits. ECF NO.6. Pursuant 1975). Beall was provided has filed an opposition. an opportunity to Rose!>o/'{} \'. Garrisoll. to respond with materials by an 528 F.2d. 309 (4th Cir. in support of his claims. and ECF Nos. 8. 9. 13 & 14. Upon review of the pleadings and exhibits. the Court linds that a hearing is unnecessary to resolve the pending Motion. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2(16). For the reasons that li,lIo\\'. the Court will dismiss Beall's claim for habeas corpus relic!: and dismiss Beall's claim offi,rced administration of medication against the State of Maryland. Cli lion T. Perkins Hospital. and Dockets.Justia.com Helsel. Because Respondents' exhibits were relied upon in deciding the forced medication claim against EI-Sayed. the dispositivc motion will be construed as one liJr summary judgmcnt. and will granted in favor of EI-Sayed. The Motion l'or a Court datc will be denicd. I. BACKGROUND Clition T. Perkins Hospital Center ("Perkins") is a State psychiatric hospital operated under the direction of the Behavioraillealth Administration. a unit of the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene ("DHMH"). See Md. Code Ann .. llealth-Gen Art. ~~ 2-106(a)(6). 7.5-201. I0-406(a)( I). At the time Beall liled this case. Ileisel was Perkins' chief executive officer. EI-Sayed is a psychiatrist employed by I'erkins and has treated Beall since March 2014. ECF No. 6-3 ,j'i 3. 8. In October 2007. Beall was charged with second-degree assault in the District Court of Maryland for Carroll County. Slale \'. Beall. Case No. 6S00040935 (Md. D. Ct. Carroll Cnty.). ECF No. 6-6. On August 21. 2008. Beall was I(JUndnot criminally responsible Illr the assault and committed to DHMH. ECF No. 6-7. Beall was admitted to Springlield Ilospital Center ("Springfield"). a psychiatric hospital under DIIMH jurisdiction. Eel' No. 6-8. Beall was released hom Springfield twice on conditional release pursuant to Md. Codc Ann .. Crim I'ro. Art. ~~ 3-114- 3-118. ECF o. 6-8. Each time he violated the conditions of release and was returned to the hospital under the provisions of Md. Code Ann .. Crim I'ro. Art. ~3-121. ECF No. 6-8. Atier his second return to Springfield. Beall waived his right to be present at the hearing required by Md. Code Ann .. Criml'ro. Art. ~ 3-121(1) and agreed to remain in the hospital. it!. On January 2. 2014. Beall's conditional release was revoked and it was ordered that he continue his commitment to the DHMH. ECF No. 6-9. 2 On Fcbruary 3.2014. "thc continucd violcncc I3call was transfcrrcd that [hc 1 cxhibitcd Beall was notified of the emergency for I'ebruary one due to Beall"s counsel"s that thc evidence ECF 6-10. transfer as required by Md. Code Ann .. Gen Ilealth-Gen 6.2014. unavailability warranted ECF NO.6-II. 6-12. Alier two and onc duc to inclemcnt hearing was held on February 20. 21 04 before an administrative determincd basis to Pcrkins bccausc of against other patients and staff members." Art. ~ 10-807. and a hearing was scheduled postponemcnts. on an cmcrgcncy law judge ("'AU") transfer and Bcall"s relocation wcathcr. the who to Perkins was proper. ECF No. 6-13. Beall complains that he does not want to takc mcdications prescribed by EI-Saycd at Perkins because they do not help him. ECF No. I at 3.1 Beall asscrts that lOl-Sayed rcfuscs to believe that he is not sick. that EI-Sayed is not helping him. and has causcd him signilicant suftering.ld. Beall states that on or about .July 14.2014. and mind would respond with lcertainimcdication. [taking] medication anti phycotic hc "decided to try to sec how Ihisl body Thc reason why is because \\'hen I was not [sic] less depressed'" ItI. Ilc indicates that he ..teel[sJ [horrible] every day seems the same no life'" !d Beall statcs thc usc of ""needles" for two weeks was "cruel and unusual punishment." mcdication. i<l .. and contends ECF No. 14. As relie[ to a private hospital. Beall asks for $350.000 and to be released. mistake for him to plead not criminally In his opposition responsible. to Respondents' 1 of sueh ti)recd tilr his pain and suffering. lOCI' No. I at 3. Additionally. to be sent Beall assel1s it was a 1<1. Motion to Dismiss. Beall claims that he was unaware when he entered his plea of not criminally I Pin cites to documents by that system. that there is audio and video evidence responsible tiled on the Court"s electronic of what that would entaiL~ ECI' NO.9 at tiling system (CrvVECF) The validity or tile pica is not at issue in this casco 3 refer to the page Ilumbers g.enerated I. He also claims the state of his mental health record is exaggerated. but provides no supporting details in this regard. Beall states that he has performed a "eouple of spiritual wonders:' and as a result. doctors have diagnosed him as schizophrenic and bipolar. ECI' NO.9 at I. EI-Sayed attests that Beall is diagnosed with schizoaffcetive disorder. bipolar type. and his symptoms include grandiose delusions. threats of violence. and assaultive behavior. ECI' No. 6-3 ~ 4. When Beall first entered Perkins. he alternated between complying and not complying with his prescribed medication regimen. !d 'i 5. DlII'ing the summer of 20 14. Beall's behavior became increasingly aggressive and violent. !d. He punched the glass on the door to his room and shattered it. He exhibited increasing paranoia. repeatedly threatened staff. and threatened to kill his father. He punched a nurse and was placed in restraints. While in restraints. he named the persons he planned to kill when the restraints were removed. lei. Beall admitted to EI-Sayed that he had not been taking his medications. ECI' No. 6-4 at 2. Because he refused to take his prescribed medication. EI-Sayed requested that a clinical review panel ("CRP") consider the casc pursuant to Md. Code Ann .. Health-Gen Art. ~ 10-708. to consider whether medication should be administered to Beall over his objection. ECI' No. 6-3 'i 5. On August 6. 2014. CRP approved the non-consensual administration of medication to Beall. !d The CRP decision was renewed through April 2015. At that time. the treatment team and EI-Sayed believed thai Beall's condition had improved so that the CRP was no longer necessary. lei. '16. Alier the CRP expired. Beall's condition worsened. lie again became hostile and threatened staff and patients. 1<1. 'i 7. Beall expressed 4 bizarre and grandiose delusions and threatened to kill EI-Sayed and other staff with an AK-47. lie refused to take certain psyehotrophie medications. Itl3 On June 3. 2015. the CR!' reconvened and approved the administration of medicine over BeaIrs objection. ECF No. 6-3 ~ 7: ECF No. 6-4. The CRP was composed of Inna Taller. M.D .. Monica Chawla. M.D .. and Valorie Grimes. I.CSW-C. ECI' No. 6-4 at I. Beall. EI-Sayed. Marvin Quinel. a staff member. and Jerry Willis. who is identitied on the CRP review' t(JrIn as a "rights advisor:' attcndcd thc CR!'. During thc CRP rcvicw. Beall spoke about "living in a spiritual world and a supercomputcr being the mind of God:' fd at 3. He thrcatcned to kill people at Perkins by crcating a tornado. Hc thrcatened to kill CRP membcrs and their families with tornados and floods. ECI' No. 6-4 at 3. Thc CPR eonsidcrcd BeaIrs refusal to take his medication as dirceted. the symptoms of his illncss. his elinical nccd for medication and that alternative treatment such as individual and group therapy had bcen ineffective. The panel concludcd that without the medication. Beall was at substantial risk of continued hospitalization becausc he was a danger to himsclf or others. Id. In addition to approving administration of oral medication. the panel approved administration of medication by injcetion. /d. The CRP decision was rcnewed on August 31. 2015. ECI' No. 6-5. The CR!'. composcd of Inna Tallcr. M.D. Ifeoma Thompson. M.D. and Rachelle Mcchaly. LCSW-C. l(llInd Beall had attenuated symptoms of his illncss and continued to entertain delusional thoughts. although he understood some of the belicfs may not be real. Beall told thc rcview panel about his "creedencc" and voices tclling him hc was a millionaire. Id. at 3. Beall said hc believcd the voices. and denied any side effects li'om the mcdication. He stated he did not think he was .' Beall refused to take: quictiapinc. divalprocx sodium or valproic acid. olanzapine. and fluphenazine. ECF No. 6-4 at 2. Quietiapine. olanzapine. and fluphenazine treat psychotic symptoms. Divalproex sodiulll or valproic acid treats mood symptoms. agitation. and impulsivity. Id. at 3. 5 mentally ill and did not see the need for medication. Beall did not appeal the CRI' decisions. Id.: ECF No. 6-3'i 7. II. DISCUSSION Respondents move for dismissal on several grounds. They maintain that Beall is lawllilly confined under Md. Code Ann .. Crim. Pro. Art. 3. and was appropriately transferred to Perkins. Further. they asscl1that Beall has not exhausted his state remedies. and that Beall docs not state a colorable e1aim under 42 U.S.c. * 1983. As a threshold matter. however. the Court must determine whether Beall has capacity to bring this action. An incompetent person who does not have a duly appointed representative may sue by a next friend or by a guardian ad litem. The court must appoint a guardian ad litem-or issue another appropriate order-to protect a minor or incompetent person who is unrepresented in an aetion. Fed. R. Civ. 1'. 17(c). In response to the Court" s Order to address \dlether appointment of a guardian ttlr Beall is warranted in this matter. ECF NO.4. EI-Sayed attests that Beall is capable of making his O\\"ll decisions about his health care. stating that it is his opinion. to a reasonable degrce of medical eertainty. that Beall docs not need a guardian Itlr the purposes of making health care decisions. ECF 6-3 ~ 8. Under Fed. R. Civ. 1'. 17(b). the capacity of an individual to sue is determined by the law of the individual's domicile. Thus. the law of Maryland determines whether Beall has the eapacity to file this lawsuit. Under Maryland law. a person is presumed compctent to stand trial. Peaks v. Slale. 18 A.3d 917. 924 (Md. 20 II). Adults are also presumed to be capable of making thcir own informcd deeisions. cven alier involuntary admission to a psychiatric hospital. Beemll11 v. Deparlmenl IItHellllh ami Me11lal/~vxie11e. 666 A.2d 1314. 1325 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1995). 6 "The fact that an inmate has bcen involuntarily institutionalized in a psychiatric facility is not tantamount to tinding the inmate is mentally incompetent to make treatment decisions:' S'rr Willia/1/s l'. Wi/::ack. 573 A.2d 809. 820 n.8 (Md.1990). In light of the foregoing. the Court concludes Beall may bring this action on his own accord. A. Beall's Habeas Claims A federal court may grant habeas rclief for an individual who is "in custody pursuant to the judgment ofa Statc court:' if the individual is "in custody in violation ofthc Constitution" or a federal law. Sre 28 U.S.C. * 2254('1). Beall. however. does not claim that his commitment violates a constitutional provision.or federal law. and thus fails to state a cognizable basis for habeas relief. The Petition must be dismissed on this basis .• Additionally. the Petition is deficient f()r several other reasons. First. Respondents correctly note the proper respondent in a habeas proceeding is the * 2242. 2243: custodian of the individual who is contesting confinement. Sre 28 U.S.c. RIIII1.~fetdl'. Padilla. 542 U.S. 426. 434-35 (2004). In this case. Ilelsei. the CEO at Perkins at the time the Petition was filed. is the appropriate Respondent on the Petition. All other Respondents. except for Helsel. are entitled to dismissal from the Petition on this ground. Respondents next contend that the habeas petition is subject to dismissal fiJr lack of exhaustion. Under Rose l'. LIIIUZI'. 455 U.S, 509. 518 (1982). before a petitioner may tile a federal habeas reliet: he must exhaust remedies available in state court. This exhaustion requirement is satisfied by seeking review of the claim in the highest state court with jurisdiction to consider the claim. 28 U.S.c. Supp. 14. 15 (0.0.C.1989). * 2254(b) & (c): 71111/1/0.1' Sail1l EIi::aherh \'. 720 F. Although allowed by Maryland law to request his release from The Court declines to issue a Certificate ofAppeability. S'ee 28 U.S,C ~ 2253(c)(2) Appealability 1113)' issue ... only if the applicalll has made a substantial showing t constitutional '.I' Ho.\jJ" right:'}. 7 (""/\ Certificate of of the denial ora .Iee Md. Code Ann .. Crim Proc. ~ 3-119. Beall did not request an administrative commitment, hearing under seetion3-119(b) habeas petition Proeecdings or a court trial under section 3-119(e). in state court. although Neither did Bealllile a to do so under Md. Ann Cts. & .Iud. authorized Art. 3-702(a) or Md. Codc Ann .. lIealth-Gen Art. ~ 10-804(a). does not dispute his failure to exhaust his claims. Accordingly. Moreover. Beall the Petition is subject to dismissal for lack of exhaustion. Even if Beall had properly exhausted refute Respondents' evidence cognizable dcmonstrating that he is lawfully conlined. the District Court lor Carroll County committed criminally responsible and continued claims lor habeas relie[ thc court immediately institutional inpatient his commitment a "committed "altcr a \'erdiet of not criminally to the Health Department release n'om commitment would not bc a danger. as a result of mcntal disordcr or mental retardation. of others if released and agreed to remain hospitalized. It)r see also Md. Ann Crim. Pro. Art. 3-114(e) (providing person is eligible Itlr conditional person or property note that alter he twice violatcd terms of conditional shall commit the defendant care or treatmenC'): Respondents Beall to the DIIMII alter linding him not rclease. See Md. Ann Crim. Pro. Art. 3-112(a) (providing responsible. he fails to n'om eonlincmenC'). only if that person to self or to the Beall waived his right to a hearing ECF No. 6-8. On January 2. 2014. his conditional rcvoked and it was ordered that Beall rcmain committed to DIIMII. release was ECF No. 6-8. Notably. Beall does not put lorth any reason why he believes that he is entitled to relcase. nor docs he claim that Respondents violated statutory Respondents protections also maintain concomitant Beall"s transfer to Perkins was proper. Under Maryland the transfcr required the director of the Behavioraillealth transfer was necessary. to his commitment. Administration so that Beall could receive better care or treatment 8 to determine law. that a at Perkins or to benefit the safetv or welfare of others. Md. Code Ann .. Health-Gen Art. ~ IO-807(b). Where. as . . here. the director determines there is an emergency requiring an immediate transfer. the patient may be transferred alier notice to the patient. so long as a transfer hearing is scheduled within ten calendar days alier the transfer. /d. ~ I0-807(c)(2). At that hearing. an ALJmust determine whether the criteria for transfer have been met. Id. ~ 10-807(d). These procedures were Illl10wed in this case. See ECF Nos. 6-10. 6-11. 6-12. The ALJlater aflinned the emergency transfer decision. ECF No. 6-13. and Beall did not seck judicial review. although permitted to do so under Md. Code Ann .. Health-Gen Art. ~ 10-807(e); Md. Code Ann .. State Gm,'t. Art. ~ 10-222. Beall does not assert that state procedures were violated nor does he identif~' grounds to tind his continement unlawful. For the above-stated reasons. Beall"s claims for federal habeas reliefwill be denied and dismissed with prejudice. B. Forced Medication Claim under 42 U.S.c. ~ 1983 The Court must liberally construe Beall"s claim that he was forcefully medicated in violation of his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. See Sell \'. Uniled Slale.\'. 539 U.S. 166. 177 (2003). Respondents seck dismissal based on lack of personal participation in the matters alleged and because they are not amenable to suit under 42 U.S.C. ~ 1983. Additionally. Respondents maintain that Beall"s medication administration followed the procedures set forth under Md. Code. Ilealth.Gen Art. ~ 10-708. governing the procedures to be followed when a patient refuses medication. providing constitutionally suflicient due process. I. Standard of Review Respondents dispositive motion is premised in part on Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. the Court "must accept as true all of 9 the factual allegations contained in the complaint:' and must "draw all reasonable inferences [from those lacts] in nl\'or of the plaintilr:' £.1. du ['om de Ne/1/ou!'s & Co. \'. Kolr!l1ll1dus .. IIIC., 637 F.3d 435. 440 (4th Cir.2011) (citations and quotations omitted). The Court need not accept unsupported or conclusory factual allegations devoid of any reference to actual events. See. e.g.. Francis v. Giaco/1/elli. 588 F.3d 186. 193 (4th Cir. 2009). Additionally. the Court is not obliged to accept legal conclusions couched as tactual allegations, Ashcrofi \'. I'lhal, 556 U,S, 662.678 (2009), or "legal conclusions drawn from the lacts:' Afolll'lle \'. Cily o('CIIlI!'llII/es\'ille, 380,385-86 579 F,3d (4th Cir. 2009). Generally. in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. a court "may not consider any documents that arc outside of the complain!. or not expressly incorporated therein:' C1al/erhuck \'. Cilyor CharlOl/esl'ille, 708 F,3d 549. 557 (4th Cir.2013), Bul.under Rule 12(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. a district court has "complete discretion to determine whether or not to accept the submission of any material beyond the pleadings that is offered in conjunction with a Rule 12(b)(6) motion and rely on it. thereby converting the motion [to one fiJr summary judgment to reject it or simply not consider it:' 5C Wright & Miller. Fed, Prac, & Pro, ed.2004.201 * 1366. at J I. or 59 (3d I Supp.). This discretion "should be exercised with great caution and attention to the parties' procedural rights:' Itf. at 149, In general. courts are guided by whether consideration of extraneous material "is likely to facilitate the disposition of the action:' and "whethcr disco\'cry prior to thc utilization of the summary judgment procedure" is necessary, Itf. at 165-67, If a court considers matters outside the pleadings ... the motion must be treated as one for summary judgment under Rule 56:' Fcd.R.Civ.P. 12(d). and"[a]ll parties must be given a reasonable opportunity to present all the material that is pertinent to the motion:' Id, "[TJhe term 'reasonable opportunity' requires that all 10 parties be given 'some indication by the court ... that it is treating the 12(b)(6) motion as a motion for summary judgment. with thc consequent right in the opposing party to tile counter atlidavits or pursue reasonable discovery .... Gay 1'. Wal/. 761 F.2d 175. 177 (4th Cir. 1985) (quoting .Iolm.lon \'. RAC C(JIj!.. 491 F.2d 510.513 (4th Cir. 1974)). As noted. Beall was provided notice of the Respondcnts' dispositivc tiling and supporting atlidavit and exhibits and an opportunity to respond with his own exhibits. consistent with Roseboro 1'.Garrison. 528 F.2d. at 309. Moreover, consideration of Respondents' exhibits \\ill facilitate disposition of this claim. The Court will therefore consider on summary judgment. Beall's claim of forced medication against EI-Sayed. Summary judgment is governed by Rule 56('1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. which provides that the "court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law:' A fact is "material" ifit "might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law:' Anderson 1'. Liherly Lohhy. /IIC., 477 U.S. 242, 248 ( 1986). "A party opposing a propcrly supported motion for summary judgmcnt 'may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of [his] pleadings: but rather must 'set fiJrth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. '" BOllchal \'. Ball. Ral'el1SFoolhal/ CllIh, /nc .. 346 F.3d 514, 525 (4th Cir. 2(03) (alteration in original) (quoting former Fed. R. Ci\'. 1'. 56(e». The Court must "view the evidence in the light most favorable to ... the nonmovant. and draw all inferences in [his] f~lvorwithout weighing the evidence or assessing the witness' credibility," Dellllis \'. Collllllhia Col/elon Medical Cenler, Inc .. 290 F3d 639, 644-45 (4th Cir. 2(02). II 2. Lack of PersoOll1 Participation in Matters Alleged. Helsel moves for dismissal for failure to state a claim. noting that Beall docs not allege that he was personally involved in the decision to involuntarily medicate him. In order for liability to cxist under ~ 1983. there must be personal involvemelll by the defendant in the alleged violation. Vim/edge \'. GiMs. 550 F.2d 926. 928 (4th Cir. 1977): Shill\" \'. SI/"lJlfd. 13 F.3d 791. 799 (4th Cir. 1994): see also Rizzo \'. Goode. 423 U.S. 362. 370-71 (1976). Insofar as Beall seeks to hold Helsel liable under a theory of supervisory liability under ~1983, there must be evidence that: (I) the supervisor had actual or constructive knowledge that his subordinate was engaged in conduct that posed a pcrvasive and unreasonable risk of constitutional injury to citizens like the plaintifC (2) the supervisor's response to the knowledge was so inadequate as to show deliberate indifference to or tacit authorization of the alleged offensive practices: and (3) there was an aninnative causal link between the supervisor's inaction and the particular constitutional injury suffered by the plaintiff. See ShaH". 13 F.3d at 799. Beall's allegations tail to satisfy the requisites for establishing supervisory liability. For these reasons. the lorced medication claim against Helsel will be dismissed. 3. Amenahility to Suit A state and its agencies are not persons for the purposes of ~ 1983. Will \.. ,Ifich. f)('1'.1 or Slale Police, 491 U.S. 58. 71 (1989). Perkins is a state psychiatric hospital operated by a unit of the DHMH. a department of Maryland State Govcrnment. Md. Code Ann .. Ilealth.Gen ~ 2.1 ()I. Perkins is not a "person" and is therefore not amenable to suit under 42 USc. ~1983. The Court also notes that the Elevcnth Amendment' to the United States Constitution provides that a state and its agencies and departments are immune li'om suits in federal court 5 Respondents do not address Eleventh Amendment immunity in the Memorandulll Illotion. 12 filed with their dispositive brought by its citizens or the citizens of another state. unless it consents. See l'eI7n/1I/rslStole Sch. and limp. ". l/a/derman.465 U.S. 89.100 (1984). While thc State of Maryland has waived its sovereign immunity for certain types of cases brought in state courts. see Md. Code Ann .. State Gov't Art. S 12-202(a). it has not waived its immunity under the Eleventh Amendment to suit in federal court. Thus the claim against the Stale of Maryland. and Perkins. a unit of the State Behavioral llealth Administration-State Department of llealth and Mental Hygiene. a Stale agency. is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Although the Eleventh Amendment "permits suits for prospective injunctive relief against state oflicials acting in \'iolation of federal law..' Frew ex ref. Frew ". Hawkins. 540 U.S. 431. 437 (2004) (citing Ex parte }'ollng. 209 U.S. 123. 157 (1908)). this rule does not extend to state agencies as parties. 4. Claim A::ainst EI-Saycd Finally. with respect to Beall's S 1983 claim against EI-Sayed. Beall alleges that EI- Sayed refuses to believe he is not sick. Beall states that he has suffered a great deal hecause of EI-Sayed. ECF NO.1 at 3. Beall avers that receiving injections ("necdles") for two weeks constituted cruel and unusual punishment. Beall. ho\\'ever. does not specifically attributc the injections to EI-Saycd. lei. As is anyone who is confined in state custody. im'oluntarily committcd patients at stalc psychiatric facilities are afforded liberty interests under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendmcnt. Therefore. the court must analyze thc complaint within thc scope of Fourtcenth Amendment protections. which requires that such individuals are provided with such services as arc necessary to ensure their "reasonable safety" fi'OIllthemselves and others. See }'ollngherg 1'. Romeo. 457 U.S. 307. 324 (1982): see a/so l'al/e17 ' .. Nicho/s. 274 F. 3d 829. 837 (4th Cir. 200f) (applying }'ollngherg standard to involuntarily committed psychiatric patients). 13 In determining whether a substantive right protected by the Due Process Clause has been violated. it is necessary to balance ..the liberty ofthc individual"' and "the demands of an organized society'" YOlllIgherg. 457 U.S. at 319 (quoting Poe \'. UlllIIlIlI. 367 U.S. 497.542 (1961 )). The Court applies the "professional judgment". standard. in which the Court considers whether "professional judgment in t~lctwas exercised'" in striking the balance between an individual"s liberty interest and the interests of the State. Id. at 321. Decisions made by professionals are presumed valid and "liability may be imposed only when the decision by the professional is such a substantial departure from ... professional judgment. practice. or standard as to demonstrate that the person responsible actually did not base the decision on such a . ,'), .Iud gment. .. II at -'_.'. (. As an involuntarily committed patient in a State psychiatric facility. l3eall has a "'significant constitutionally protected liberty interest in anliding the unwarranted administration of antipsychotic drugs .... Sell. 539 U.S. at 178 (quoting Washillglllll 494 U.S. 210. n I (1990) \'. HlIrper. ... [W]hen the purpose or effect of l(lI'ced drugging is to alter the will and the mind of the subject. it constitutes a deprivation of liberty in the most literal and fundamental sense'" Vlliled SIllIes \'. Blish. 585 F.3d 806. 813 (4th Cir. 2009). "Involuntarily committed mental patients retain a libel1y interest in conditions of reasonable care and safety and in reasonably nonrestrictive conlinement conditions'" YOll11gherg. 457 U.S. at 324. The Fourteenth Amendment ensures that states will provide not only l(lI'the medical needs of those in penal settings. but lor anyone restricted by a state li'om obtaining medical care on his o\\"n. See DeSlwlley \'. Willllehllgo. 489 U.S. 189.200 (1989): YOlllIgherg. 457 U.S. at 324. Here. Beall does not allege l~lctSIrom which this Court can conclude that there was a substantial departure lrom accepted professional judgment in his treatment. Further. there is 14 ample evidence that Beall"s involuntary medication was compelled by his increasingly aggressive and violent behavior and refusal to comply with his prescribed medication regimen. Beall does not dispute receiving requisite proeedural protections before he was administered medication. Absent a genuine dispute of material fact whether Beall"s right to due process was abridged, EI-Sayed is entitled to summary judgment in his lavor. III. CONCLUSION For these reasons, the Court will dismiss Beall"s claims for habeas rclief and his claims under * 1983 for tailure to state a cognizable claim tor relief. Beall"s due process claim will be dismissed as to Helsel, Perkins. and the State of Maryland. and summary judgment will be granted in favor of EI-Sayed. A separate Order tallows. Dated: August z.. '2".2016 GEORGE J. HAZEL United States District Judge 15
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
