WPC *kEɪLȪe'"{(~Q!q=le)GeC˚XϢ&\&MZ@%j ǰ5cNcV+6ǹze 2Ry3zO|,mZ7̣wfVo6L8X1+P.Uoj0qlpƞU@VCt-blQ3;)oK#|GJoG򠅝7"aٶyBzaO]XLMhQ`qmcyCsh%f!cBy@K;GљTv ])ݸ*896@brϺ݋4kkUְ bI -w2SۢRS=":~&cREzpLƸsO89~#F+T?jwF.2_t7(eEPrHjo򥽮 cNd{%K?ُjA351']F@YEÊC{Wa͊Džp=#VgUNj %mj 0:sj^ jwj4jjj mj 0jMk mt 0 ~x 0 Dx 0x 0Uy 0y 0z 0s{ 0,| 0| 0} 03~ 0~ 0o 0. 0 0 0M 0 0 0 0 04 0 0 0b 0 0 0< 0Ή 0Z 0<ފU> 00cX 1u 720 0 wb 0 ٌ 0 c 0  0 0 ~ 0 Y 0 DH 1 72UJG 4œ 4— 0X ,(* 0RF 1Ƞ 72O 1 72 1> 72ɢ ,(' ,O({NE_ B 0> 0 0 ,ٱ( ,-(Y ,( 0ղ 0 0 0~ 0` 0 02 0 0: 0YT 0_ 0  0 0 B* D/ D+ 0" D/( 0W 06% 0[ 0:c 0^ 0< 1e7U6U* ,( ,:(f 0 ,( ,(>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0Nf\\MONKEYPOD\hplaser,,,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,$4 {4:i+003|xU0AA.Normal  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5   C ($USUS.,    3    _ԀForexample,inits1994supplement,theAmericanCorrectionalAssociationsStandards  forAdultCorrectionalInstitutions,statedthatinstrumentsofrestraintsuchashandcuffs,irons  andstraitjacketsshouldneverbeappliedaspunishment.34183at60.4F 4<O  5  6<O  7 4Ԁ  ($USUS.,    7    _.XsXXXԀJudith_Storandt_Ԁhasnotedthatpriortothetheirrevisionin2003,the_ACA_ԀStandards e included mandatoryminimumprotectionsforwhenajuvenileisplacedinfourorfivepoint Q restraints(e.g.,continuousdirectvisualobservationbystaff).SeeACA2004Standards = Supplement,p.239.TherevisedACAStandardsincludenoreferencestofourandfivepoint ) restraints.Thischangemightindicatethatthenonmedicaluseoftheseformsofmechanical  restraintsarenolongerconsideredappropriateforuseinaJCFacility.See,Wellsv.Franzen,   777F.2d1258,1261(7thCir.1985)(Freedomofbodilymovementprotectedbythedueprocess   clauseis breachedwhenaprisonerisbodilyrestrainedexceptpursuanttoanappropriateexercise  t ofjudgmentbyahealthprofessional.).The2003ACAStandardsalsoincludenomentionof  ` restraintchairs.#XsXX.Xse#.XsXXXsSee,also,_ACA_ԀStandard3JTS3A31: Innoeventisphysicalforcejustifiable  L  aspunishment.#XsXX.Xs##  ($USUS.,    8    _Ԁ.XsXXXInRoperv.Simmons,125S.Ct.1183(2005),theSupremeCourtreliedonmodern e theoriesofadolescentdevelopmenttoholdthattheexecutionofindividualswhowereunder18 Q yearsofageatthetimeoftheircapitalcrimesviolatestheEighthandFourteenthAmendments. = See,generally,NinaW._Chernoff_,MarshaL._Levick_,BeyondtheDeathPenalty:Implicationsof ) AdolescentDevelopmentResearchfortheProsecution,Defense,andSanctioningofYouthful  Offenders,ClearinghouseRev.J.ofPovertyLawandPol#XsX.Xsf#<XXXs=#XsX<XS#.XsXXsy209(JulyAugust2005)#XsXX.Xs#.(.(3($ !USUS.,      0  (#$  0  <AA:Definition T  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  *+ (_2623  ..*D+D (_25   ," <DL,23  ..," <DL,   *5+5 (_24  ) <DL)23  ..) <DL)  *2+2 (_23 ` &<<DL&23  ..&<<DL& ` */+/ (_22  #DL#23  ..#DL#  *,+, (_21   DL 23  .. DL  *)+) (_20 h DDL23  ..DDL h *&+& (_19  L23  ..L  *#+# (_18   L23  .. L  *>> (_17  2( 4 <DL223  Ԁ2( 4 <DL2  *DD (_16   ," <DL,23  Ԁ," <DL,   *55 (_15  ) <DL)23  Ԁ) <DL)  *22 (_14 ` &<<DL&23  Ԁ&<<DL& ` *// (_13  #DL#23  Ԁ#DL#  *,, (_12   DL 23  Ԁ DL  *)) (_11 h DDL23  ԀDDL h *&& (_10  L23  ԀL  (## &_9   L23  Ԁ L  (>> &_8  2( 4 <DL223  2( 4 <DL2  (DD &_7   ," <DL,23  ," <DL,   (55 &_6  ) <DL)23  ) <DL)  (22 &_5 ` &<<DL&23  &<<DL& ` (// &_4  #DL#23  #DL#  (,, &_3   DL 23   DL  ()) &_2 h DDL23  DDL h (&& &_1  L23  L  &## $_   L23   L  <:Default Para\  `&Times New Roman(;3$2#  0  .3  0  3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)0i)(O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(#(b$0  0` (#(#2#   .3  0 ` (#` (#(xir$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2#(  0  )3  0 (# (#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2#(  a  )3  0h(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#2#(   )3  0h(#h(#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#2#  0  )3  0(#(#({$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#2#  a  )3  0p(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#0p(#(#2#     )3  0p(#p(# /2345678xGaeimquy}Bullet ListBullets List:9kIA`2WP TypographicSymbolsDocument2zzSDUNumber109  ($USUS.,    4    _ԀForexample,theBridgewaterStateHospital,aforensicmentalhealthfacilityformenin e Massachusetts,whileadministeredbytheDepartmentofCorrection,issubjecttothesame Q statutoryrulesthatgovernrestraintinDepartmentofMentalHealthfacilities.Mass.Gen.Laws. = ch.12321.Consequently,throughlitigation,advocateshavesuccessfullylimitedtheuseof ) punitiveanddisciplinaryrestraintatBridgewater,OSullivanv.SecretaryofHumanServices,  402Mass.190,521N.E.2d997(1988),theuseof cagesforbehavioralpurposes,andthenon   emergencyuseofhandcuffsforintrafacilitytransportation.Conversev.Nelson,Mass.Superior   Ct.(SuffolkCty.)SUCV9501677(declaratoryandinjunctiverelief,April24,2000).Document2zzSDUNumber102<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  ($USUS.,    5    _ԀThePLRA,however,prohibitsprisonersfrombringingacivilactionformentalor e emotionalinjury withoutapriorshowingofphysicalinjury.42U.S.C.1997e(e)and28 Q U.S.C.1346(b)(2)(FederalTortClaimsAct).Thisprovisionhasfosteredaconfusingseriesof = EighthAmendmentopinions.Somecourtshaveheldthatdamagesforexposureto ) unconstitutionalprisonconditionsarebarredbythePLRAunlessthereisproofofphysicalharm.  Harperv.Showers,174F.3d716(5thCir.1999);Adanv.SantaClaraCnty.Dept.of   Corrections,2002WL32058464(N.D.Cal.2002)(prisonerkeptinsolitaryconfinementwith   handsandfeetshackledandsubjectedtobodycavitysearchescouldnotseekcompensatory  t damagesbecausehedidnotallegephysicalinjury).OthercourtshaveheldthatundertheEighth  ` Amendmentitistheobjectivenessoftheconditions,nottheireffectontheprisoner,which  L  determinestheirlawfulness.Therefore,thesecourtsholdthattheEighthAmendmentcanbe  8  violatedevenwhennopainisinflicted.Armstrongv._Drahos_,2002WL187502(N.D.Ill. $  2002)(awardingnominaldamages);Sotov.Lord,693F.Supp.8(_S.D.N.Y._Ԁ1988)(damagesof u  $50.00adayforunconstitutionalpunitivesegregation,nominaldamages[$1.00]inabsenceof a  proofofdistress).http://www.youthlawcenter.com/ylc_jcvb.htm.Document2zzFN_B2781Document2zzFN_F2781Document2zzSDUNumber7http://www.centerforpublicrep.org./2345678x VA_cgkosw{DiamondsDiamond Bullet````````G9`/2345678xCcgkosw{TrianglesTriangle BulletI9/2345678xIcgkosw{Large BulletLarge BulletK9Document2zzFN_B2805Document2zzFN_F2805Document2zzFN_B2806Document2zzFN_F2806 Pelzer S.CtpenologicalGen.Laws CtyMcMilliano]nlySeiterHegstromYoungbergaffdCollazoFigelN.D.IndBranhamMeachumBrazeltonMyattKylerpolysubstanceOstenfeld DeloFerolaD.R.I.FrohmaderunsentencedMacLarenLousianaGuerrero D.OrHartsfieldVidorHewettlockdownAlbersminimisMcKinneyRoyster D.VaLeMaireMaassLollisLunsfordMilonas lstminimusProcunier i]fTheusAngelonejumpsuitsCollnF.R.D.FranzenMachtE.D.WiscSchwabke WRC L.J. TASC PLRA Adan Cnty ; ($USUS.,    1    _Ԁ.XsXXXProducedbytheCenterforPublicRepresentation(CPR)withagrantfromtheTraining  AdvocacySupportCenter(TASC)attheNationalDisabilitiesRightsNetwork(_NDRN_)froma  federalinteragencycontractwiththeAdministrationonDevelopmentalDisabilities(ADD),the  CenterforMentalHealthServices(CMHS),andtheRehabilitationServicesAgency(_RSA_). t Additionalsupportcamefromthe_JEHT_ԀFoundation.#XsXX.Xsf#ԀTheauthorappreciatestheveryhelpful ` contributionsofJudithStorandt,Esq.oftheNationalDisabilityRightsNetwork,Washington, L  D.C.,andJim_Pingeon_ԀofMassachusettsCorrectionalLegalServices,Boston,Massachusetts,to 8  thispaper. d86Definition e (hh&H1  5+ ` hp x 5      5+ ` hp x 5    ($USUS.,    2    _ԀWedonotdiscussthepotentialimplicationsofthePrisonLitigationReformAct(PLRA)  of1966,thatcouldbeinvokedinlitigationchallengingrestraintpractices.Amongthemost  importantprovisionsofthePLRAarethoseat18U.S.C.3626(limitingprospectiverelief)and  42U.S.C.1997(prisonerlitigationprovisions,includingexhaustionofadministrativeremedies, t limitsonattorneysfees,limitsonrecoveryformentaloremotionalinjury).ThePLRAlimits ` somefortherightsofprisonerswhofilelawsuits.(]]&H2  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  Document2zzFN_B2782Document2zzFN_F2782Document2zzFN_B2783Document2zzFN_F2783Document2zzFN_B2784Document2zzFN_F2784(]]&H3  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5    ($USUS.,    6    _Ԁ.XsXXX.&XS%X.Xs#.XsX%.&XS#Courtsoftenreferto,butprofessnottobeboundby,professionalorindustrystandards e todeterminewhattheconstitutionrequires.TheStandardsforJuvenileCorrectionalFacilitiesof Q theAmericanCorrectionalAssociation(2003)[herein, _ACA_ԀStandards]areonesourceto = whichcourtsmaylook.#XsXX.Xsf#.XsXXXsSee,e.g.,ACAStandards,Standards3JTS3A16: UseofRestraints. ) Writtenpolicy,procedure,andpracticeprovidethatinstrumentsofrestraint,suchashandcuffs,  legirons,andstraightjackets,areneverappliedaspunishmentandareappliedonlywiththe   approvalofthefacilityadministratorordesignee.Comment:Instrumentsofrestraintshouldonly   beusedasaprecautionagainstescapeduringtransfer;formedicalreasonsbydirectionofthe  t medicalofficer;ortopreventjuvenileselfinjury,injurytoothers,orpropertydamage;andshould  ` notbeappliedformoretimethanisabsolutelynecessary.Seealso,Standard3JTS3A26:  L   Writtenpolicy,procedureandpracticegoverntheavailability,control,anduseofchemical  8   agents8.Chemicalagentsareusedonlywiththeauthorizationofthefacilityadministratoror e designee.#XsXX.Xs#(]]&H4  5+ ` hp x 5 XXX 5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H5  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H6  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  2DD0Address  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEK|<6X9`(Courier NewKS.\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard K|<6X9`(Courier NewKS.\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted  /%  ,Kk %#/K|<6X9`(Courier NewKS.\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/  <:zBottom of 7q(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?}%2A`Arial?  S.\  `&Times New RomanS7r(X75+ ` hp x 5  &  d dp)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7t(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?}%2A`Arial?  S.\  `&Times New RomanS7r(X75+ ` hp x 5  p)2dxd0KS.SampleK|<6X9`(Courier NewKS.\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterK|<6X9`(Courier NewKS.\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB   !" 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New%2A`Arial  ($USUS.,    9    _ԀNor,forthatmatter,hastheSupremeCourtseenenoughofadistinctionamonga e _Hawaii_ԀprisonssegregatedconfinementinaSpecialHoldingUnit(SHU)fordisciplinary Q purposes,administrativesegregation,protectivecustody,orevenrestrictionsinthehousingofthe = generalpopulation,tocreate adramaticdeparturefromthebasicconditionsof[theinmates] ) indeterminatesentence.Since30daysindisciplinarysegregation didnotworkamajor  disruptioninhisenvironment,hedidnothaveaprotectedlibertyinterestthatwouldrequire   greaterdueprocessprotectionsthanaffordedbytheprison._Sandin_Ԁv.Conner,515U.S.472,   48687(1995).Document2zzFN_B2801Document2zzFN_F2801Document2zzFN_B2802Document2zzFN_F2802Document2zzSDUNumber9Document2zzFN_B2803Document2zzFN_F2803Document2zzFN_B2804Document2zzFN_F2804(O$ !USUS.,  _  8sXXdd8 WOGAINSCONFERENCE  THELEGALLIMITSONTHEUSEOFRESTRAINTINJAILS,  PRISONS,ANDJUVENILEFACILITIEST #  1      *!      Thispaperbrieflydescribesthebasicconstitutionalrulesthatappeartoapplytotheuseor ` misuseofbehavioralrestraintandseclusionforincarceratedadultsandyouth.Forpurposesof L  thispaper,weconsiderrestrainttoincludemechanicalrestraints(including,e.g.,handcuffs, 8  shackles,leatherormetalrestraints,restraintchairs,straitjackets,andthelike);medicationfor $ t thepurposeofrestraint(forexample,theuseoftranquilizers);seclusionorisolationforpurported  ` mentalhealthreasons;and,chemicalagents(e.g.,pepperspraywhenusedtoassistinarestraint).*!Y #  2        L      I.Theuseofrestraintforpunishment. $  e  InHopev.Pelzer,122S.Ct.2508(2002),theSupremeCourtheldthataprisoner,Larry   Hope,wassubjectedtocruelandunusualpunishmentinviolationoftheEighthAmendmentwhen   prisonguardshandcuffedhimtoahitchingposttosanctionhimfordisruptivebehavioronachain   gangworkcrew.Theincidentleadingtotherestrainttookplaceastheworkcrewarrivedatthe p roadsideworksite.Hopewassubdued,placedinirons,andtakenbacktotheprisonwherehewas \ attachedtothehitchingpostfornearlysevenhours.Thecourtheldthat theEightAmendment H violationwasobvious.Thiswasso,inpart,becauseany safetyconcernhadlongsinceabated, 4 therewasa clearlackofanemergencysituation,theguards knowinglysubjected[Hope]toa  p substantialriskofphysicalharm,to unnecessarypain,and,toa riskofparticulardiscomfort  \ andhumiliation.122S.Ct.at2514.Suchpunitivetreatment,theCourtheld, amountstoa H gratuitousinflictionofwantonandunnecessarypain.122S.Ct.at1215. 4   TheHopeopiniondoesnotdiscussprisonpunishmentgenerallyoratanylengthanddoes   notholdthatalluseofrestraintforpunishmentisunconstitutional.However,itmaybefairtoinfer  thatalthoughrestraintmaybeusedinemergencysituationstoensuresafety,toquellathreat,orto  restoreorder,itcannotbeusedforpunishmentafterthethreathasabated,particularlyifthe  restraintplacestheprisoneratriskofharm.    Indeed,professionalstandardsrequire  #  3      ׀andmostprisonadministratorsstatethatusing ` restraintforpunishmentisalways(oratleastalmostalways)inappropriate.Asthecaseslistedin L  thecasesummarieswhichaccompanythispaperdemonstrate,mostoftherelevantcases(most 8  decidedbeforeHope)holdthesameway. $ t   Theprohibitionagainstpunishmentisevenmorecertainforpretrialdetaineesand  L  juveniles,whohavenotyetbeenconvictedofanycrime.  8      II.Theuseofrestraintfororderandmentalhealthpurposes.     Ifrestraintmaybeappropriatelyusedtokeeporrestoreorderortopreventharm,itsuse   inthatcontextisalmostcertainlyapenologicaldecision,tobemadebyprisonadministratorsor   guards.However,insomecircumstancesthedisturbanceorthepotentialthreatofharmmaybea p productoforrelatedtotheinmatesmentaldisabilityandtheensuingrestraintmaybemoreofa \ medicalorpsychiatricmatterthanapenologicalone.Typically,theremaybebothimmediate H institutionalsecurityissuesandshortandlongtermmentalhealthissuesatstake.Insuchcasesthe 4 standardcan,anddo,getconfused.  p   Therules,totheextenttheycanbegeneralized,appeartobethatwhentheissueisa H mentalhealthissue,theremustbesomeinvolvement(evendecisionmakingauthority)bymental 4 healthprofessionals(oratleastadequatelytrainedstaff)indecisionstorestrainandthenatureand   durationoftherestraint.     InWashingtonv.Harper,494U.S.210(1990),theSupremeCourtheldthatinlightofthe  needforprisonsafetyandsecurity,aprisonregulationwhichallowedforforcedmedicationof  inmateswithmentalillnesscouldwithstandconstitutionalscrutinyifitwasreasonablyrelatedto l legitimatepenologicalinterests,evenwhereasignificantlibertyinterest(therighttorefuse X  treatmentwithantipsychoticmedication)isimplicated.Nevertheless,an overridingjustification D! isnecessary.Thecourtrejectedtheplaintiffsargumentthatrestraintandseclusionwere 0"  acceptablesubstitutesforforcedmedication.Id.,at226.Seealso,_Riggins_Ԁv.Nevada,502U.S. #l! 807(1985)(forcedmedicationofpretrialdetaineescouldbeappropriateifessentialforsakeof $X" safetyofthedetaineeorothersorthelackofalessintrusivemeanstoobtainanadjudicationofthe $D #  defendantsguiltorinnocence). %0!$ WO We W    Exceptperhapsinafewforensiccorrectionalsettings,> #  4      ؀thesubstantiveruleswhichapplyto e  restraintincivilmentalhealthormentalretardationprogramsdonotapplyinprisonsandjails. Q Mostmentalhealthsettingsallowrestrainttobeusedonlytopreventtheimminentlikelihoodof = harm.Whentherestraintisstrictlyamatterofinstitutionalprisonorder,andmentalhealthisnot ) implicated,decisionstorestrainarefortheprisonstaffandthedurationoftherestraintappearsto  belimitedtothedurationofthethreat.     III.Theconstitutionalanalysis  t   A.Convictedprisoners  L    TheEighthAmendmentprotectsconvictedprisonersfromcruelandunusualpunishment $  and,therefore,placessomeconstitutionallimitsontheuseofrestraint. u   :/23456789(y30"/3"    /323  0 `   Thescopeandhistoryoftheconstitutionalprohibitionof"cruelandunusual M  punishment"hasbeenrecountedinseveralSupremeCourtopinions.Estellev. 9  Gamble,429U.S.97(1976);Greggv.Georgia,428U.S.153(1976).According % totheseopinions,theprimaryconcernofthedraftersoftheConstitutionwasto  prohibittorturesandotherbarbarousmethodsofpunishment,Estelle,429U.S.at  102,thoughtheAmendmentalso"proscribesmorethanphysicallybarbarous  punishments."Gregg,428U.S.at171./3݌p` s#` s# Ќ  "/3"    /3"23  0 `   TheAmendmentembodies"broadandidealisticconceptsofdignity,civilized H standards,humanityanddecency...againstwhichwemustevaluatepenal 4 measures.Thus,theSupremeCourthasheldpunishmentswhichareincompatible   with theevolvingstandardsofdecencythatmarktheprogressofamaturing q  societytoberepugnanttotheEighthAmendment.Estelle,429U.S.at102 ] (quotingTropv.Dulles,356U.S.86,101(1958)(pluralityopinion))./3"H"݌I` s#` s# Ќ  "/3"    /3%23  0 `   Thisdeterminationismadeinthecontextofprisonconditionsbyascertaining ! whetheranofficialactedwith"deliberateindifference"totheinmates'healthor   safety,Hudsonv.McMillian,503U.S.1,8(1992),astateofmindthatcanbe   inferredfromthefactthattheriskofharmisobvious.Farmerv.Brennan,511U.S. !  825(1994)./3%G%݌"l!` s#` s# Ќ    "/3"    /3'23  0 `   Interventionsthatinvolve"theunnecessaryandwantoninflictionofpain,"% C 4DL <O  5  6a(<Ou(Ԁpr  7L (violate Q theconstitutionsprohibitionofcruelandunusualpunishment.Hopev.Pelzer,536 = U.S.730(2002).Interventionsthatinvolve unnecessaryandwantoninflictionof ) painincludethosethatare"totallywithoutpenologicaljustification."Gregg,428  U.S.at183;Rhodesv.Chapman,452U.S.337,346(1981)./3''݌ ` s#` s# Ќ    "/3"    /3+23  0 `   However, [o]nlythosedeprivationsdenying'theminimalcivilizedmeasureoflife's  t necessities'...aresufficientlygravetoformthebasisofan% E EighthAmendment  ` violation."Wilsonv.Seiter,501U.S.294(1991)./3+<+݌ L ` s#` s# Ќ  ! ! :/23456789(yy:/23456789"/3"    /3~-23  0 `   Courtswillusuallydefertoprisonofficialsastowhatisnecessaryforinternal $  prisonsecurityandadministration./3~--݌u ` s#` s# Ќ    % [ 4\<O  5  6.<O.Ԁpr  77/Therefore,aprisonerchallengingunwarrantedandexcessiverestraintmustallege! ! M   I/23456789(yy:/23456789first,asufficientlyseriousdeprivation% ] 4^<O  5  60<O0Ԁpr  7:1oflibertyand,second,thatofficialsactedwithasufficiently 9  culpablestateofmind.% _ 4` <O  5  6%2<O92Ԁpr  7 w2ԀInanalyzingclaims,courtsconsiderboththeobjectivecomponent-- % whetherthewrongdoingwas"harmfulenough"toimplicatetheEighthAmendment--andthe  subjectivecomponent--whethertheofficialsactedwithasufficientlyculpablestateofmind.  %  4?<O  5  604<OD4  7?r4%  4?<O  5  64<O4  7?"5Hudsonv.McMillian,503U.S.1(1992).    Inestablishingtheobjectivecomponent,aprisonerneednotprovehehassustained \ significantinjury._A #  5      _Ԁ% M 4N?t <O  5  66<O6  7?t 87Id.,;Brooksv.Kyler,204F.3d102(3dCir.2000).However,theuseofforce H doesnotamounttocruelandunusualpunishmentsimplybecauseitappears,inretrospect,thatthe 4 degreeofforcewasunreasonableorunnecessary.% O 4P?H<O  5  68<O8  7?H9Ԁ     Thequestionofwhetheranofficial actedwithasufficientlyculpablestateofminddepends ] whethertheforcewasappliedinagood-faithefforttomaintainorrestore%  discipline,ormaliciously e andsadisticallyfortheverypurposeofcausingharm.%  4?4<O  5  6:<O;  7?41; Q   Factorstobeconsideredindeterminingthesubjectivecomponentinclude: )  :/23456789(yyI/23456789"/3"    /3<23  0 `   theneedfortheapplicationofforce;/3<<݌ ` s#` s# Ќ  "/3"    /3~=23  0 `   therelationshipbetweentheneedandamountofforceused;/3~==݌ t` s#` s# Ќ  "/3"    /3}>23  0 `   theextentofthethreattothesafetyofprisonstaffandotherinmatesasreasonably  L  perceivedbytheresponsibleofficial;and/3}>>݌ 8 ` s#` s# Ќ  "/3"    /3?23  0 `   anyeffortsusedbyprison officialstotempertheseverityofaforcefulresponse.%  4?H"<O  5  6@<O@  7?H"@/3?@݌u ` s#` s# Ќ    B.Pretrialdetainees M    Claimsbypre-trialdetaineesareanalyzedundertheFourteenthAmendmentDueProcess % ClauseratherthanundertheEighthAmendment.Bellv.Wolfish,441U.S.520,535n.16(1979).  Becausepre-trialdetainees'rightsundertheFourteenthAmendmentareroughlycomparableto  prisoners'rightsundertheEighthAmendment,courtsusuallyapplyapproximatelythesame  standard,particularlyinregardtoconditionsofconfinement.Frostv.Agnos,152F.3d1124,1128 p (9thCir.1998).However,theFourteenthAmendmentprohibitsimposingconditionsorpractices \ notreasonablyrelatedtothelegitimategovernmentalobjectivesofsafety,order,andsecurityon H incarceratedpersonswhohavenotbeenconvictedofcrimes,.Bellv.Wolfish,441U.S.520 4 (1979).     C.Juvenilefacilities ]   Mostjuvenilefacilitiesusesomesortofrestraintincertainsituations.Thetypesofrestraint 5 mayincludehandcuffs, timeoutorisolation,usemechanicalrestraint,medicationforrestraint, ! and,inlimitedcircumstances,teargasorpepperspray.b #  6      ׀Restraintisutilizedeithertocontrol   allegedmanifestationsofmentalillnessor,usuallyintheformofseclusionorisolation,forpunitive e purposesforbehaviorthatmayactuallybethemanifestationofamentalillness._ h #  7      _Ԁ Q   Restraintorseclusionpracticesthatmaybeallowedforadultsmaynotbeacceptablefor ) children.Forexample,childrenprobablyexperiencethepassageoftimedifferentlythandoadults.  Consequently,anhourofrestraintmaybequiteadifferentexperienceforachildthanforanadult.    Juvenilesareevenmoresusceptibletomentalanguishthanadultconvicts.H.C.by_Hewitt_Ԁv.   _Jerrard_,786F.2d1080,1088(11thCir.1986).And,expertshaveconvincedatleastonecourt  t thatextendeduseofisolationonchildrenis cruelandinhumaneand counterproductivetothe  ` developmentofthechild.Lollisv.N.Y.State_Dept_ԀofSoc._Servs_.,322F.Supp.473,480  L  (_S.D.N.Y._Ԁ1970).Moreover,recentstudiesofadolescentbraindevelopmentmayhaveinteresting  8  implicationsintheconsiderationoftheimpactoftherestraintorseclusiononyouth._T #  8      _ $    Forchildrenandadolescentsinjuvenilefacilitiestherulesaresimilartothoseforpretrial a  detainees: M  "/3"    /3N23  0 `   TheDueProcessclauseoftheFourteenthAmendmentisusuallyheldtogovernthe % standardsforconditionsofconfinementofjuvenileoffendersandthoseawaiting  juveniletrial.IntheabsenceofaSupremeCourtopiniondirectlyonpoint,courts  haveappliedthereasoningofBellv.Wolfish,441U.S.520(1979)(adultpretrial  detainees)tojuveniledetentionfacilities.See,e.g.,GaryH.v.Hegstrom,831F.2d p 1430(9thCir.1987)and_R.G._Ԁv._Koller_,2006WL291637,*21(D._Hawaii_ԀFeb.7, e 2006)./3N,O݌Q` s#` s# Ќ     `  = "/3"    /3R23  0 `   Sincethepurposeofjuvenileconfinementisnotforpunishmentbutisfor ) rehabilitationandtraining,confinementinconditionsthatamounttopunishment,or  thatareasubstantialdeparturefromacceptedprofessionaljudgementviolatethe   FourteenthAmendment.Casesapplyingthereasoningandprofessionaljudgment   analysisofYoungbergv.Romeo,457U.S.307(1982)tojuvenilefacilitiesinclude  t AlexanderS.v.Boyd,876F.Supp773,(D.S.C.1995),_affd_Ԁinpart,reversedin  ` partonothergrounds,113F.3d1373(4thCir.1997),cert.denied,118S.Ct.880  L  (1998)and_R.G._Ԁv._Koller_,supraat*21.In_K.H._Ԁv.Morgan,914F.2d846,851(7th  8  Cir.1990)thecourtstatedthat Youngbergv.Romeomadeclear...thatthe $  Constitutionrequiresresponsiblestateofficialstotakestepstopreventchildrenin u  stateinstitutionsfromdeterioratingphysicallyorpsychologically./3RS݌a ` s#` s# Ќ    "/3"    /3X23  0 `   Therefore,restrictionsonlibertymustbejustifiedonthebasisofobjectivesother 9  thanpunishmentforpastmisdeeds!rehabilitation,safety,orinternalorderand % security.Nevertheless,administratorsareallowedtopunishresidentsforthe  purposeofdiscipline.Insuchcases,therestrictionsonlibertymustbe reasonably  relatedtoalegitimategovernmentinterest.Santanav.Collazo,714F.2d1172,  1180(1stCir.1983)./3XX݌p` s#` s# Ќ    Thecourtsarenotalwaysconsistentinapplyingthesestandards.Forexample,somecourts H havedistinguishedbetweenconditionsofconfinementcasesandthosewhichallegeafailureto 4 protectdetaineesfromharm.Forexamplein_R.G._Ԁv._Koller_,theplaintiffsallegedboththatthe   juvenilecorrectionsfacilityillegallyisolatedgayyouthandthatitfailedtoprotecttheyouthfrom q  taunting,harassment,andassaultbystaffandotheryouth.Thecourtconsideredtheconditions ] claims(thoserelatedtoisolation)usingthedueprocessstandardsinBell,butthefailuretoprotect I claimsunderadeliberateindifferencestandard.Id.,*21*23.InA.M.v._Luzerne_ԀCountyJuvenile 5 DetentionCenter,372F.3d572,579(3dCir.2004),acasewhichcenteredonclaimsthatthe ! facilityhadfailedtoprotecttheplaintifffromharm,thecourt,citingtoYoungbergv.Romeo,held   thatdetainedyouthhavealibertyinterestinpersonalsecurityandwellbeingthatisprotectedby   thesubstantiveguaranteesoftheDueProcessClause.Inanalyzingtheapplicationofthatright,the !  courtemployedadeliberateindifferencestandard. "l!   Evenwhencourtshaveapprovedtheuseofseclusionorisolationforyouth,theyhave $D # oftenrequiredthatcertainbasicactivitiescontinueduringtheperiodofseclusion.Forexample,the %0!$ youthshouldbeallowedtocontinueschoolworkandtohaveaccesstofreshairandexercise. &"% Youthwhoreceivespecialeducationservicesbecauseofalearningrelateddisabilityshouldhave m'#& thoseeducationalservicesprovided,regardlessoftheirisolationstatus.Mentalhealthmonitoring Y(#' andservicesshouldprobablybeenhancedduringaperiodofisolation. E)$(   ,'+   IV.Theimpactofprolongedisolation. e .XsXXX  Aslongagoas1890,theSupremeCourtacknowledgedthedevastatingeffectsofseclusion = onprisoners.InreMedley,134U.S.160(1890).Moremoderncasesreachsimilarconclusions. ) See,e.g.,JonesElv._Berge_,164F.Supp.2d1096,1098(W.D._Wisc_.2001)(enjoiningplacement  ofmentallyprisonersinsupermaxongroundsthat"[_m]ost_Ԁinmateshaveadifficulttimehandling   theseconditionsofextremesocialisolationandsensorydeprivation,butforseriouslymentallyill   inmates,theconditionscanbedevastating.");#XsXX.Xsd#.XsXXXsDavenportv._DeRobetis_,844F.2d1310,1313(7th  t Cir.1988)( therecordshows,whatanywayseemsprettyobvious,thatisolatinghumanbeings  ` fromotherhumanbeingsyearafteryearevenmonthaftermonthcancausesubstantial  L  psychologicaldamage,eveniftheisolationisnottotal).  8    Despitewhatseems prettyobvious,courtshavenotbeenoverlysolicitousofcasesin u  whichinmates,presumablyingoodmentalhealthwhenplacedinisolation,havethendeteriorated.~ #  9       a  Jacksonv.Meachum,699F.2d578(1stCir.1983)(the8thAmendmentisnotaguarantorof M  inmatesmentalhealth);Newmanv.Alabama,559F.2d283,291(5thCir.1977)( TheConstitution 9  doesnotrequirethatprisoners...beprovidedwithanyandeveryamenitywhichsomepersonmay % thinkisneededtoavoidmental,physical,andemotionaldeterioration.)      However,theresultsareusuallydifferentwhentheprisonofficialshad actualknowledge  thattheinmatewasmentallyillandthatplacementinisolationplacedhim atrisk.Aportionof p thewellknown PelicanBaycase,Madridv.Gomez,889F.Supp.1146(N.D.Cal.1995),dealt \ withthisissue.PelicanBayhousedabout1500inmatesinaparticularlydraconianSHU,with H extremesocialandenvironmentalisolation.Thecourtfoundthatformostoftheinmateswho 4 cametotheSHUwithmentalproblems,theirproblemshadworsenedasaresultoftheisolation.     Indeed,somereportedcasesthathaveconsideredthequestionhaveheldthat supermax ] confinementofadultprisonerswithexistingseriousmentalillnessisunconstitutional.See,e.g., I Ruizv.Johnson,37F.Supp.2d855,915(S.D.Tex.1999),_revd_.onothergrounds,243F.3d 5 391(5thCir.2001);OfficeofProtectionandAdvocacyforPersonswithDisabilitiesv._Choinski_, ! No.3:03CV1352(_RNC_)(D.Conn.SettlementAgreementMarch8,2004).     #XsXX.Xsg#  V.Conclusion !   "l!   Certainusesofrestraintinprisons,jailsandjuvenilefacilitiesmayviolatetheconstitution. e Whetheraparticularrestraintisunconstitutionalmaydependonavarietyoffactors,including:the Q kindoffacilityitwasusedin,thelegalstatusofthepersonrestrained,whetherthepersonhada = mentalillnessoremotionaldisability,thenatureoftheeventsleadinguptotherestraint,who ) ordereditandforwhatpurpose,thekindofrestraintused,anditsnatureandduration.    u  RobertD.Fleischner    CenterforPublicRepresentation  t !uuSELECTEDCASESADDRESSINGTHELEGALLIMITSONTHEUSEOFRESTRAINT  L  INJAILS,PRISONS,ANDJUVENILEFACILITIES  8  u  April2006 u    ӀAdanv.SantaClaraCnty.Dept.ofCorrections,2002WL32058464(N.D.Cal.2002).Prisoner M  keptinsolitaryconfinementwithhandsandfeetshackledandsubjectedtobodycavitysearches 9  couldnotseekcompensatorydamagesbecausehedidnotallegephysicalinjuryasrequiredbythe % PLRA.  Andersonv.CountyofKern,45F.3d1310(9thCir.1995),opinionamendedondenialof  rehearing,75F.3d448(1995),cert.deniedsubnomCountyofKernv.Anderson,516U.S.916 p (1995). DistrictCourtdidnoterrinrefusingtoenjoinofficialsfromevermakinguseof safety \ cellformentallydisturbedorsuicidalpretrialdetainees,under14thAmendmentanalysis. H Deprivationofsinks,standuptoiletsandbedwerejustifiableforashortperiod. 4 Birdv.Figel,725F.Supp.406(N.D.Ind.1989). PlaintiffhadAIDS.Jurycouldproperlyfindthat q  a"suicidewatch"policywasunreasonablewhereplaintiffwasdeniedachangeofclothing, ] mattressandbedding,personalhygienematerials(soap,towels,washcloth,toothbrush, I toothpaste,shavingitems,toiletpaper,commissary,visits,papers,pencils,postage, 5 correspondence,allreadingmaterial,anddrinkingwater).Inaddition,guardsdeniedhim ! telephoneaccess,sayingtheydidnothavedisinfectanttocleanthetelephoneafterheusedit.   Theyalsotoldhimhecoulddrinkoutofthetoilet--thehealthhazarddidn'tmattersincehewould   dieanyway.Plaintiffawardedbothcompensatoryandpunitivedamages. !  Branhamv.Meachum,77F.3d626(2dCir.1996).EighthAmendmentnotviolatedwheninmate #X" confinedtocell,deprivedofrecreation,andforcedtowearrestraints,evenwhenbathing. $D # Complaintdidnotallegesufficientfactstostateaclaimbasedontheuseofexcessiveforceorthat %0!$ officialsactedwithwantonstateofmind.FourteenthAmendmentclaimthatprisonerwasdenied &"% therighttohavehisrestraintreviewedunderadministrativeprisondirectiveprocesswassufficient m'#& tostateaclaim. Y(#' Brazeltonv.Myatt,1999WL966435(N.D.Ill.)(unpublishedopinion). Femalejuvenileplaintiff 1*%) incarceratedataYouthCampsuesafterbeingshackledfortransportationtoaparolehearing +&* despiteamedicalconditionwhichprohibitedshackling.Shewasforcedtowalk,fellandinjured  ,'+ herself.Defendantsmotiontodismiss,basedonfailuretoexhaustadministrativeremedies,failure e tostateaclaim,andqualifiedimmunity,isdenied. Q Brooksv.Kyler,204F.3d102(3dCir.2000).Triableissueoffactregardingmaliceexistedwhere ) prisonerallegedhewaspunchedinhead,slammedintowall,choked,threatened,andnearly  renderedunconsciouswhilehandcuffedtowaistrestraintbelt.Factofexistenceofonlyminor   injuriesdidnotbarclaim.   Buckleyv._Rogerson_,133F.3d125(8thCir.1998).Mentallyillprisonermaynotbeplacedin  ` restraintswithoutmedicalapproval."Insofarasrestraintsformentallydisturbedinmatescanonly  L  beusedformedicalpurposeswithoutrunningafoulofdueprocessguarantees,thisCourtholds  8  thatcustodypersonnelareunqualifiedtomakesuchdeterminationsonanonemergencybasis." $  SeealsoUnitedStatesv.Michigan,680F.Supp.928(W.D.Mich.1987). u  Campbellv.Sikes,169F.3d1353(11thCir.1999). Femaleprisonerwithlonghistoryofmental M  illnessandpolysubstanceabuse,suedunder1983withclaimsforexcessiverestraint,excessive 9  forces,deliberateindifferencetomedicalneeds,andforuseofpunishmentinlieuoftreatment.Her % compliantalsoincludedstatelawclaimsformedicalnegligenceandintentionalinflictionof  emotionaldistress.Theplaintiffatvarioustimeswasrestrainedinstraightjackets,fourpoint  restraint,andinan Lshaperestraintwithherkneesbentsothathercalveswereperpendicularto  herback.Thiswasaccomplishedbyhandcuffingheranklesandherhandsandrunningastrapfrom p thecuffsonherhandstothoseonherankles.(ThePlaintiffcalledthis hogtying,thedefendants \ calledit tethering.)Thecourtheldthatexcessiveforceclaimsdependonwhethertheperiodsof H restraintwereinstituted maliciouslyandsadisticallyfortheverypurposeofcausingharm.Italso 4 heldthatcourtsshouldgivedeferencetoprisonofficialspunitivejudgmentsandthatcompliance   withprisonpoliciesevidencesofficialsgoodfaith.Findinginsufficientevidencetosupportajurys q  findingthatanyofthedefendantspossessedthesubjectivementalintentrequiredtosupportthe ] deliberateindifferenceandexcessiveforceclaims,thecourtaffirmedthedistrictcourtsorderof I summaryjudgmentforthedefendantsonthesecounts.Officialswerejustifiedinapplying 5 physicallyuncomfortablerestraintsoneveryoccasionappliedtoprisoner,andofficialscarefully ! monitoredprisoner'scirculationtopreventphysicalinjury.   ChristinaA.v.Bloomberg,2000WL33980011(D.S.D.2000).DistrictCourtapprovesa !  settlementagreementinacasechallengingconditionsattheSouthDakotaStateTrainingSchool, "l! includingtheexcessiveandunreasonableuseofrestraintandisolation.Theplaintiffscomplaint #X" alleged,amongotherthings,thatboysandgirlswererestrained,sometimesnaked,infourpoint $D # restraint,spreadeagled,oncementslabs.Agreementprovidesthatfixedrestraintmaynotbeused %0!$ foranyminimumsetperiodoftime.Restraintswillnotbeusedtoescortyouthtoandfromtheir &"% cells,exceptinextremesituationsofaggressiveorassaultivebehavior.Restraintofselfinjurious m'#& orsuicidalyouthwillonlybeusedafterconsultationwithamentalhealthclinician.Cell Y(#' confinementmayonlybeusedforsolongasayouthmaintainsanyviolentordangerousbehavior, E)$( willbereviewedevery24hours,andayouthmaynotbeconfinedfor72hourspriortoahearing. 1*%) TheYouthLawCenter,whichlitigatedthecase,reportsthattheafterbeingopenedfor100years, +&* thefacilityclosedonDecember31,2001.See,4BrT<O  5  www.youthlawcenter.com/ylc_jcvb.htm.6<Opons  7rԀ  ,'+ ЇConversev.Nelson,Mass.SuperiorCt.(SuffolkCty.)SUCV9501677(declaratoryandinjunctive e relief,April24,2000)Enjoiningtheuseof cagesforbehavioralpurposes,andthenon Q emergencyuseofhandcuffsforintrafacilitytransportation.Inordertoavoidtherequirementsof = thestatelawonrestraint(whichdefinerestraintasincludingconfinementtoaroom),aforensic ) mentalhealthprisonconstructedcagesoutsidetheusualrestraintcells.Theinmatecouldmove  freelybetweenthecellandtheadjacentcage.Thefacilityunsuccessfullyarguedthatsincethe   prisonerwasnotconfinedto aroom,thestandardsforuseofrestraint(imminentlikelihoodof   harmtoselforothers)andtheproceduralrequirementsthatattendit(e.g.,doctorsorder,time  t limits,monitoring)neednotbemet.  ` Davidsonv.Flynn,32F.3d27(2dCir1994).Useofrestraintsasaretaliatorydevicesdevice  8  becauseinmatesbehaviordispleasedcorrectionsofficermayviolateconstitution.Inmatestatedan $  8thAmendmentclaimbyallegingthathandcuffswereplacedtootightlyleadingtoseriousand u  permanentphysicalinjuryandthatexcessiveforcewasappliedwantonlyandmaliciouslyin a  retaliationforbeinglitigious,evenifinmatewasescaperiskandsomerestraintwasnecessary M  beyondthatnormallyused. 9  Davisv.Heckle,175F.3d1019(7thCir.1999)(Table);unpublishedopinionavailableat1999WL  184146.Affirmingdismissalofcasewhereprisonerallegedhewasheldinaseclusioncellin  mechanicalrestraintfor14hourswithout,amongotherthings,amedicalexamination.Thecourt  foundthateventhoughtheconditionsmayhaveviolatedprisonpolicies,theydidnotviolatethe8th p Amendment. \ D.B.v._Tewksbury_,545F.Supp.896,905(D.Or.1982).Thecourtheldthat [_p]lacement_Ԁof 4 youngerchildreninisolationcellsasameansofprotectingthemfromolderchildrenviolatedthe   dueprocessprovisionsofthe14thAmendment. q  Engv.Smith,849F.2d80(2dCir.1988). Thedistrictcourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretionin I orderingunspecifiedsafeguardsformentallyillinmatesinspecialhousingunits.Although 5 plaintiffs'evidencefocusedonasingleinmatewhocommittedsuicide,therewas"sufficient ! evidencetosupportthecourt'sfindingsofsystematicdeficiencies."Thefactthatdefendantshad   alreadyimplementedmostoftheorderedproceduresdidnotmatter,sincewithoutaninjunction   therewouldbenothingtopreventthedefendantsfromabandoningtheprocedures. !  EstateofDavisbyOstenfeldv.Delo,115F.3d1388(8thCir.1997).EighthAmendmentviolated #X" becauseofficerstruckinmateinheadandface20to25timeswhile4otherofficerswere $D # restraininginmate'slimbs,afterinmatecompliedwithordertoliefacedownonfloorwithout %0!$ resistingeffortstorestrainhim,andevidenceofseriousinjuriessustainedbyinmate. &"% _Feliciano_Ԁv._Barcolo_,497F.Supp.14,35(_D.P.R._Ԁ1979)..XsXXXsIfsolitaryconfinementinvolvesneither Y(#' intolerableisolation,norinadequatefood,heat,sanitation,lightingorbedding,andifconfinement E)$( isshorttermedandproperlysupervisedwithnolackofnecessarymedicalattention,itoffendsno 1*%) constitutionalprohibition,butisolationisunconstitutionalifthereisinadequatesanitaryconditions, +&* ifitisforlongperiodoftimewithoutexerciseandrecreation,orifitthreatensphysicalhealthof  ,'+ prisonersandinterfereswithmedicalattention.#XsXX.Xs#ԀSolitaryconfinementofyoungadultsheldtobe e unconstitutional. Q Ferolav.Moran,622F.Supp.814(D.R.I.1985). Shacklingofseverelyanti-socialprisonerwith ) lengthypsychiatrichistoryofself-inflictedinjurytoabedwithoutmedicalsupervisionfor20hours  constitutedcruelandunusualpunishment.Prisoner'shistorysuggestedenhancedneedforclose   observation,prisonerwasdeprivedofaccesstobathroomfacilitiesduring14-hourperiod,and   baremetalrestraintswereattachedtospread-eagleprisonerinmannerthatencouraged  t self-destructivetendencies,inflictedpain,andimposedalmosttotalimmobilization.  ` ЀThecourtheldthatthecareaffordedprisonerdidnotreflectdeliberateindifferencetohis  L  psychiatricneeds.Itgrantedequitablereliefanddamagesof$1,000.  8  Frenchv.Owens,777F.2d1250(7thCir.1985) TheCourtstatesthatdeliberateindifferencecan u  beprovedby"repeatedexamplesofnegligentactswhichdiscloseapatternofconductbythe a  prisonmedicalstaff"orbyshowing"systematicorgrossdeficienciesinstaffing,equipment, M  facilities,orprocedures."TheCourtaffirmedtheDistrictCourt'sorderrequiringpsychiatric 9  approvalfortheuseofrestraints.Inaddition,trainedmedicalpersonnelmustconstantlymonitor % thepatient,andapsychiatristmustreviewtheneedforfurtherrestrainteerytwelvehours.Those  inneedofrestraintsbeyondtwentyfourhoursmustbesenttoapsychiatrichospital.  Frohmaderv.Wayne,958F.2d1024(10thCir.1992). Theplaintiffwasprogressivelyrestrainedin p handcuffs,a"bellybelt,"andfullrestraintsincludingafootballhelmet,allegedlybecausehewas \ hittingandkickingthecellwallsandbanginghisheadagainstthebars.TheCourtofAppeals H reversedafindingthatthedefendantwhorestrainedhimcouldnotbeheldliableintheabsenceof 4 anyevidencetocontradictthedefendant'sstatementthathewastryingtokeeptheplaintifffrom   harminghimself. q  Fuentesv.Wagner,206F.3d335(3dCir.2000)certdenied531U.S.821(2000).Fourteenth I Amendmentclaimnotstatedwhenconvicted,butunsentenced,inmateplacedinrestraintchairfor 5 8hoursbecauseinmate'sphysicalconditioncheckedevery15minutes,hewasreleasedevery2 ! hoursfor10minutestostretchandusetoilet,wasgivenfood,andwasexaminedbynurseatend   ofconfinement,eventhoughprisonofficialoverreactedinusingthechair.Restraintsthatare   reasonablyrelatedtoaninterestinmaintainingjailsecuritydonot,withoutmore,constitute !  unconstitutional punishment,eveniftheyarediscomforting. "l! GaryH.v.Hegstrom,831F.2d1430(9thCir.1987).Courtheldthatisolationpracticesat $D # MacLarenSchoolforBoys,amaximumsecurityfacilityinOregon,wereunconstitutional. %0!$ Excessivenumbersofjuvenileswereplacedinisolationforunnecessarilylongperiodsoftime.The &"% 9thCircuitupheldthefactualfindingandlegalconclusions. m'#& GaryW.v.StateofLousiana,437F.Supp1209(EDLa.1976),furtherordersandopinionsat E)$( 601F.2d240(5thCir.1979),1990WL17537(EDLa.1990),1993WL17686(EDLa.1993). 1*%) Thislengthylitigationandsubsequentenforcementactionsspannearlytwodecadesofcontention +&* betweenthepartiesandtookplaceinthecontextofchanginglaw.Theoriginalcomplaint  ,'+ challengedLouisianaspracticeofsendingchildrentofacilitiesandTexasandconditionsin e facilitiesthereandinLouisiana.Thedetailedprimaryremedialorder,enteredin1976,included Q severalrestrictionsontheuseoftimeout,restraint,andisolation.Theyincluded: =  Nochildshallbeplacedaloneinalockedroom,eitheraspunishmentorforanyotherpurpose. ) Legitimatetimeoutproceduresmaybeutilizedundercloseanddirectprofessionalsupervision.  "Timeout"procedures aretobeimposedonlywhenlessrestrictivemeasuresarenotfeasible;   ...Placementshallbeinanunlockedroomwithastaffmemberconstantlynearbyinaplacewhere   thestaffmembercansupervisethechild;...Thechildshallhaveaccesstobathroomfacilitiesas  t needed...Theperiodofisolationorsegregationshallnotexceed12hoursunlessrenewedbya  ` qualifiedprofessional. Exceptinanemergencysituationinwhichitislikelythatachildwould  L  harmhimselforothers,thedecisiontoplaceachildintimeoutshallbemadepursuanttoa  8  writtenorderbyaqualifiedprofessional,followingapersonalinterviewwiththechildandan $  evaluationoftheepisodeorsituationsaidtorequireisolationorsegregation.Anysuchordermust u  specifythetermsandconditionsoftimeoutandtherationaleforthedecision. Physical a  restraintsshallbeemployedonlywhenabsolutelynecessarytoprotectthechildfrominjuryto M  himselfortopreventinjurytoothers.Restraintsshallnotbeemployedaspunishment,forthe 9  convenienceofstaff,orasasubstituteforatreatmentprogram.Achildshallberestrainedonlyif % alternativetechniqueshavefailedandonlyifsuchrestraintimposestheleastpossiblerestriction  consistentwithitspurpose;andthenonlyinaccordancewiththefollowingstandards...  Anorderforrestraintshallbeinwritingandshallnotbeinforceforlongerthan12hours....  Exceptinanemergencysituation,onlyqualifiedprofessionalsmayauthorizetheuseof p restraints...Achildplacedinrestraintshallbecheckedatleastevery30minutesbystafftrainedin \ theuseofrestraints,andarecordofsuchchecksshallbekept....Mechanicalrestraintsshallbe H designedandusedsoasnottocausephysicalinjurytothechildandsoastocausetheleast 4 possiblediscomfort.   Gatesv.Collier,501F.2d1291(5thCir.1974)."Sinceabolishingthepilloryoveracenturyago, ] oursystemofjusticehasconsistentlymovedawayfromformsofpunishmentsimilartohitching I postsinprisons.Handcuffinginmatestothefenceandtocellsforlongperiodsoftimeandother 5 suchpunishmentsrunafouloftheEighthAmendment,offendcontemporaryconceptsofdecency, ! humandignity,andpreceptsofcivilizationwhichweprofesstopossess.   GuerrerovCain,574FSupp1012(D.Or.1983).Pretrialdetaineewhowaschainedtohisbedin !  prisoncellfor4daysfailstostatecauseofactionwheredefendantchainedplaintiffbecauseof "l! legitimatesecurityconcerns,andchainingwasnotexcessiveinrelationtothoseconcerns,and, #X" chainingwasnotadministeredinexcessivelyrestrictiveormedicallydangerousfashion. $D # Hartsfieldv.Vidor,199F.3d305(6thCir.1999).EighthAmendmentnotviolatedbyprison &"% officials'actofkeepinginmatewhodamagedhiscellinhardrestraintsfortwo8-hourperiods m'#& becauseadequatetoiletbreaksandopportunitiestodrinkwaterwereprovided. Y(#' H.C.byHewettv.Jarred,786F.2d1080(11thCir.1986).Conductofsuperintendentofjuvenile 1*%) detentioncenterinimposingisolationuponjuvenilepretrialdetaineewithoutnoticeorhearing, +&* shacklingjuveniletobedinisolationcell,shovingjuvenileandslamminghimagainstwalland  ,'+ metalbunkofisolationcell,warrantedawardofpunitivedamagesinfavorofjuvenile,inthat e reasonablepersonwouldhaveknownthatConstitutionforbadesuchconduct. Q _Hewes_Ԁv._Magnussen_,350F.Supp.2d222(D.Maine2004).Theinmateunsuccessfully ) challengedthreeseparateincidentsofadministrativesegregation.Inconsideringoneincident,the  courtheldthatplacementinadministrativesegregationafterparticipationina prison   demonstrationchallengingaprisonpolicydidnotimposeanatypicalorsignificanthardshipand   thusdidnotviolateanylibertyinterestinbeingfreefromrestraint,eventhoughhelostthe  t opportunitytoearngoodtimecredits.Inanotherincident,thecourtfoundthattheinmatehad  ` beenreleasedafterheindicatedthathecouldbesafeinthegeneralpopulation.  L  _Hollingsworth_Ԁv.OrangeCty.,No.90345(OrangeCty.,Cal.,SuperiorCourt,July27,1990). $  DescribedinMichaelJ.Dale,LawsuitsandPublicPolicy:TheRoleofLitigationinCorrecting u  ConditionsinJuvenileDetentionFacilities,32_U.S.F.L._ԀRev.675,69191(1998).Statecourtheld a  thatdefendantsproceduresforrestrainingandsupervisingtherestrainingofminorsintiedowns M  andinrubbersafetyroomsviolateddueprocess.Courtrequiredthatpriorapprovalofa 9  psychiatristwasnecessaryforuseofanysuchrestraintsexceptinaclearemergency.Inhisarticle, % ProfessorDaledescribestheorderasthe mostdetailedcourtholdingontheuseofrestraints  decidedtodate.TheplaintiffswererepresentedbytheYouthLawCenterofSanFrancisco.  Hopev.Pelzer,122S.Ct.2508(2002).Inmatewassubjectedtocruelandunusualpunishmentin p violationoftheEighthAmendmentwhenprisonguardshandcuffedhimtohitchingpostfor \ disruptivebehavior,despitehishavingalreadybeensubdued,whereguardsknowinglysubjected H himtoasubstantialriskofphysicalharm,tounnecessarypaincausedbythehandcuffsand 4 restrictedpositionofconfinementforaseven-hourperiod,tounnecessaryexposuretotheheatof   thesun,toprolongedthirstandtaunting,andtoadeprivationofbathroombreaksthatcreateda q  riskofparticulardiscomfortandhumiliation. ] Hudsonv.McMillian,503U.S.1(1992).Prisonguardsstrucktheinmateintheface,chest,and 5 abdomenwhiletheinmatewasinfullrestraintandbeingtransferredtoanadministrativelockdown ! cell,causingminorbruises,aswollenface,andabrokendentalplate.Courtextendstheapplication   oftheCourt'sholdinginWhitleyv.Albers,475U.S.312,toallclaimsofexcessiveforce.Useof   excessiveforcemayconstitutecruelandunusualpunishmenteventhough% = theprisonerdoesnot !  sufferseriousinjury. "l! Jacksonv.Morgan,19Fed._Appx_.97,2001WL1116275(4thCir.2001).Reversingajuryverdict $D # infavorofprisonerwhowasheldinthreepointrestraintsinasegregationcell,wearingonly %0!$ underwear,afterbeingpeppersprayed.Inmatesufferedonlydeminimusinjuryandcouldnotstate &"% anexcessiveforce_calim_Ԁunderthe8thAmendment. m'#& Jacksonv.Johnson,118F.Supp.2d278(N.D.N.Y.2000).Plaintiffsuedfordamagesforinjuries E)$( sustainedbyajuveniledetainedinayouthcenterwhenhewassubjectedtoaphysicalrestraint 1*%) technique.Thetechniqueusedwasthattheyouthwasplacedontheflooronhisstomachwithone +&* staffpersonpositioninghimselfacrosstheyouthsbackandholdingtheyouthsarmsbehindhis  ,'+ backandanotherstaffpersonholdingtheyouthslegsdown.Therestraintlasted30minutes,until e theyouthwasrenderedunconscious.Thedefendantsmovedforsummaryjudgmentwhichwas Q denied.Amongotherreasonsforthedenialwerethattherewerefactissueswhetherthestaff = appliedexcessiveforceandwhetherthestaffshoweddeliberateindifferencetotheplaintiffs ) condition,eachinviolationoftheplaintiffs14thAmendmentrights.  Jonesv.Shields,207F.3d491(8thCir.2000).EightAmendmentnotviolatedbecausewhen   inmatesprayedwithpepper-basedchemicalsprayresultinginjurywasdeminimis,notunnecessary  t andwantoninflictionofpain,andinmatewasofferedtreatmentthereafterandtherewasno  ` showingthattheuseofthespraywasmaliciousorsadistic.  L  Jonesv.Thompson,818F.Supp.1263(SDInd.1993).Pretrialdetaineeattemptedsuicide. $  Althoughsomerestraintandextraordinaryinterventionwaswarranted,extendeduseofthree-way u  restraintswithoutanymedicalreviewortreatment,anddenialofevenbasicamenitiessuchas a  personalhygieneandtoiletusagewasnotreasonablyrelatedtolegitimategoalorinterestof M  countyjail,andthereforeconstitutedpunishmentinviolationofdetainee'sdueprocessrights. 9  .XsXXXsJonesElv._Berge_,164F.Supp.2d1096,1098(W.D._Wisc_.2001).Placementofmentally  prisonersinsupermaxenjoinedongroundsthat"[_m]ost_Ԁinmateshaveadifficulttimehandling  theseconditionsofextremesocialisolationandsensorydeprivation,butforseriouslymentallyill  inmates,theconditionscanbedevastating." p #XsXX.Xs<#Keyv.McKinney,176F.3d1083(8thCir.1999).Prisoner'splacementinrestraintsfor24-hour H periodnotimpositionofatypicalandsignificanthardship.Therewasnoseriousdeprivationofthe 4 minimalcivilizedmeasureofnecessitiesandprisonofficialsconductwasnotwanton.   LandmanvRoyster,333FSupp621,supp.op.354FSupp1302(D.Va1971).Oneprisonerhad ] beenrestrainedinhissolitarycellbyhandcuffinghim,chaininghisbodytothecellbars,wrapping I tapearoundhisneckandsecuringthattothebarsfor14hours.Anotherprisonerhadbeenchained 5 tothecellbarsbyhiswaistandarmsinsuchafashionthathecouldjustbarelyrecline.The ! chaininghadcausedbothprisonerslackofsleepandprolongedphysicalpain;andthatneither   prisonerwasreleasedtorespondtoacallofnatureortoeat.Courtsaidthatcorporalpunishment   bychainingwasoutmodedandinhumanandwasforbiddenbytheConstitution.Thecourtrejected !  theargumentthatthepolicyofchainingwasjustifiedtopreventself-injury.Chainshadbeenputon "l! withoutmedicalapproval,whileadoctor,ifcalledonforarecommendation,mightwellhave #X" prescribedsomeformofdrugtreatment. $D # LeMairev.Maass,12F.3d1444(9thCir.1993).NoEighthAmendmentviolationwhenprison &"% officialsemployuseofrestraintsinshowers,curtailmentofoutsideexerciseprivileges,useofquiet m'#& cells,useofin-cellrestraint,toaltermurderous,dangerous,uncivilized,andunsanitaryconductof Y(#' inmate.Noneoftherestraintswereunnecessaryofimposedmaliciouslyorsadisticallyforpurposes E)$( ofcausingharm. 1*%) _Liscio_Ԁv.Warren,901F.2d274(2dCir.1990).Plaintiffallegedthatprisonmedicalstaffwas  ,'+ deliberatelyindifferencetohismedicalneedswhilehewassufferingfromalcoholwithdrawal.He e wasplacedinrestraintsandnotexaminedbyaphysicianforthreedaysdespitehisworsening Q mentalandphysicalcondition.Thecourtreversedthedistrictcourt'sgrantofsummaryjudgment = tothedefendantbecauseitwasnotclearastowhetherdefendant'sconductconstitutedmere ) negligenceordeliberateindifference.  Lollisv.NewYorkStateDepartmentofSocialServices,322F.Supp.473(SDN.Y.1970).   MeasuredbythestandardsoftheEighthAmendmentandgivenevidenceoftheviewsofexpertsin  t adolescentpsychology,atwo-weekconfinementofafourteen-yearoldgirlinastrippedroomin  ` nightclotheswithnorecreationalfacilitiesorevenreadingmatterviolatestheConstitution'sban  L  oncruelandunusualpunishment.However,courtstatesitisnotholdingthatisolationofchildren  8  underanycircumstancesisunconstitutional,butmerelythatthetreatmentofplaintiffinthiscase $  violatedpermissiblebounds.ThiscaseisarelatedcasetoPena,infra. u  Lunsfordv.Bennett,17F.3d1574(7thCir.1994).Therewasnoconstitutionalviolationwhen M  prisonofficialsshackledprisonerstotheircellsfor4hourssotrusteescouldmopwaterincell 9  blockwhichprisonershadflooded. % _McCreight_Ԁv.Davis,1999U.S.App.LEXIS400(4thCir.January13,1999).Reversinggrantof  summaryjudgmentfordefendantswhereplaintiffwasrestrainedforfourhourswithoutany  penologicaljustification. p Milonasv.Williams,691F.2d931(10thCir.1982)cert.Denied460U.S.1069(1983).Owners H andoperatorsofalockedprivate schoolforyouthwithbehavioralproblemswereactingunder 4 colorofstatelawforsection1983purposes.Recordinthetrialcourtsupportedfindingsthat   schoolsuseofisolationroomsandexcessivephysicalforceviolatedstudentsFourteenth q  amendmentrights.Smallisolationrooms,thatwerewithoutfurnitureandhadonlyasmallwindow ] inthedoor,wereusedaspunishmentforviolationofschoolrulesorwhenboyswerebelievedto I beemotionallyorphysicallyoutofcontrol. 5 _Mulkern_Ԁv.CumberlandCounty,2001WL1519409(D.Me.2001).Prisoner'sestateallegedhe   committedsuicidebecausehewaspunished,includingmultiplestaysinarestraintchair,whenhe   shouldhavebeenmedicated.Althoughthecourtacknowledgedthistheorywasplausible,there !  wasnoevidenceguardsactedunconstitutionally. "l! Murphyv.Walker,51F.3d714(7thCir.1995).Pretrialdetaineeshackledtofloorofcellentitled $D # torecoverforinfringementoflibertyinterestinfreedomfrombodilyrestraintunlessprisoncould %0!$ demonstratealegitimatemedicalorpenologicalreasonfortheuseoftheshackles. &"% ODonnellv.Thomas,826F.2d788(8thCir.1987).Bindinginmatetohospitalbedwithleather Y(#' restraintsandmetalhandcuffsdidnotconstitutecruelandunusualpunishment,wheretheywere E)$( usedonadviceofphysician,andrestraintwasnotmoreseverethannecessarytopreventinmate 1*%) fromharminghimselforothers. +&*   ,'+ Pearsonv.Fair,935F.2d40l(lstCir.l99l). Consentdecreesgoverning"sequestration"(seclusion) e ataTreatmentCenterforSexuallyDangerousPersonsdonotrequiretheapplicationofstate Q proceduresgoverningseclusioninmentalhospitals.NordoestheEqualProtectionClauserequire = theirapplication,sincethepopulationoftheTreatmentCenterisnotidenticaltothatofcivil ) mentalhospitals,andsincetheinstitution'smissionistoprotectsocietyfromitspatientsaswellas  totreatthem.   Penav.NewYorkStateDivisionforYouth,419F.Supp.203(SDNY1976).Classactionon  t behalfofchildrenplacedwithandparoledfromtheGoshenAnnexforBoys,aNewYorktraining  ` schoolchallengingundertheEighthandFourteenthAmendmentstheuseofisolation,handand  L  feetrestraintsandtranquilizingdrugstocontrolexcitedbehavior.Courtheldthatchildrenhavea  8  constitutionalrighttorehabilitativetreatmentandthattheinstitutionwouldbeenjoinedfrom $  violatingitsownregulationsgoverningconfinementanduseofphysicalandmedicalrestraints. u  Childrenmaynotberestrainedtoafixedobject.ThiscaseisarelatedcasetoLollis,supra. a  Pricev.Dixon,961F.Supp.894(_E.D.N.C._Ԁ1997).Prisonerwithmentalillnessallegedthat 9  correctionalstaffrespondedtohisillnesswithchemicalagentsandrestraintinsteadoftreatment. % Mentalhealthprofessionalshadremovedplaintifffrommentalhealthunitbecauseofdisruptive  behavior.Thecourtruledthatcorrectionalstaffarenotrequiredtomakeseparatejudgments  aboutmentalhealthofaprisoner,ineffectsecondguessingtheprofessionals.  _R.G._Ԁv._Koller_,2006WL291637(D._Hawaii_Ԁ2006).Threejuvenileseitherwhoidentifiedasor \ werelesbian,gay,bisexualor_transgender_Ԁ(_LGBT_),suedclaimingdueprocessandequal H protectionviolationsatstatejuvenilecorrectionfacility.Amongotherviolations,thecourtfound 4 thatfacilitysuseofisolationto protect_LGBT_Ԁyouthwasnotwithintherangeofacceptable   professionalpracticesandconstitutedpunishmentinviolationoftheirdueprocessrights. q  Samuelsv.Hawkins,157F.3d557(8thCir.1998).NoEighthAmendmentviolationwhenguard I threwhotliquidonprisonerinrestraintsafterprisonerthrewcupofurineattheguard.Guarddid 5 notactsadisticallyormaliciously,onlyunprofessionally.Theforceusedwasdeminimusandthere ! wasnoevidencetosupporttheinmatesclaimofseriouseyedamage.   Santanav.Collazo,714F.2d1172,1180(1stCir.1983).Inthesecondappearanceofthiscase !  beforetheFirstCircuit,thecourtagainremandedtothetrialcourtforfurtherdevelopmentofthe "l! recordtodeterminewhetherisolationasusedbyajuveniledetentionfacilityinPuertoRicowas #X" constitutional. $D # Spainv.Procunier,600F.2d189,197(9thCir.1979).TheNinthCircuitupheldaninjunction &"% againsttheDirectoroftheCaliforniaStateDepartmentofCorrection,prohibitingtheuseof m'#& mechanicalrestrainingdevicesonprisonerswhentheytraveledfromahigh-securityareaofthe Y(#' prisonforcourtappearancesorfamilyvisits.Thetrialcourthadfoundthattheuseofthesedevices E)$( foralloutofcellmovementwas"dehumanizing"andthatitwascruelandunusualpunishment. 1*%) TheNinthCircuitagreedandheldthat"[i]fthephysicalormentalpainthatresults[fromtheuseof +&* neckchains]iscruelandunusual,itisaviolationoftheEighthAmendmentregardlessoftheintent  ,'+ orthepurposeofthosewhoinflictit."Inconclusion,thecourtheldthatmechanicalrestraints e couldnotbeusedtopunishinmates. Q Swansv.CityofLansing,65F.Supp.2d625(W.D.Mich.1998).Courtupholdsjuryverdictof ) morethantenmilliondollarswhereschizophrenicprisonerdiedasaresultofimproperuseof  restraintsbypolice.     Theusv.Angelone,895FSupp265(D.Nev.1995).Prisonguardsusedreasonableforcein  t incidentinwhichtenMusliminmatesprotestedbanonuseofchapelrestroomforablutions  ` requiredbyRamadanfastingcyclebyrefusingtoleavechapelandthrowingchairthroughchapel  L  window.Stripping,searching,shackling,andclothingprotestorsinorangejumpsuitsdidnot  8  amounttoinflictionofpunishment. $  VanCollnv.CountyofVentura,189F.R.D.583(C.D.Cal.1999).Preliminaryinjunctiongranted a  toaclassofpretraildetaineesenjoininguseofPro_straint_Ԁrestraintchair.Courtfoundalikelihood M  ofsuccessundertheFourteenthAmendment. 9  Wellsv.Franzen,777F.2d1258(7thCir.1985). Plaintiffwasplacedinrestraintsforninedays  afterprisonofficialsconcludedhemightbesuicidal.Hewasnotinterviewedbyapsychiatristuntil  thefifthday.Thecourtheldthataprisonermaynotberestrainedexceptwhenorderedbyahealth  careprofessionalinaccordancewithprofessionalstandards.Thenatureanddurationofrestraint p mustbereasonablyrelatedtoitspurposeandmaybeemployedonlywhenlessdrasticmeasures \ haveprovedtobeineffective.Althoughinanemergencyrestraintsmaybeimposedwithout H involvingadoctor,theymaynotbecontinuedwithoutaproperdeterminationbyahealthcare 4 professional.   Westv.Macht,235F.Supp.2d966(E.D.Wisc.2002) _affd_.subnomWestv.Schwabke,333 ] F.3d745(7thCir.2003).PlaintiffsarepastandcurrentpatientsatWisconsinResourceCenter I (WRC),astatecorrectionalinstitutionwhichalsohousescivillycommittedsexuallyviolent 5 persons.Theirclaimsincludeviolationsoftheirdueprocessrightsbecauseofextendedperiodsof ! restraintandseclusion.Theplaintiffsallegethattheywereunlawfullysubjectedtoseclusionoften   lastingweeksorsometimesmorethanamonth.Someseclusionwasorderedbytheadministrative   staff,butmostwascarriedoutpursuanttosecureManagementPlans,createdandimplementedby !  psychologistsandothers.Plaintiffsweresometimesplacedinseclusionnaked.Thebarecellswere "l! sometimeswithouttoiletsandplaintiffswereprovidedabaginwhichtorelievethemselves. #X" Accesstoareasoutsidethecellswerelimited(inphysicalrestraints)toanhouradayonweekdays $D # andnotatallonweekends,atleastduringthefirstphaseoftheplan. %0!$ Althoughdismissingsomeclaims,theCourtfindsthereissufficientevidenceforareasonablejury &"% toovercomethepresumptivevalidityofthedefendantpsychologistsdecisionsandtojustifya m'#& findingthatdefendantsviolatedtheRomeov.Youngbergstandard._The_Ԁopinionincludesadetailed Y(#' discussionofthecontentandlegalmeritoftheplaintiffsexpertsreports. E)$( Williamsv.Benjamin,77F.3d756(4thCir.1996)EighthAmendmentclaimisstatedwheninmate +&* confinedonbaremetalbedframeinfourpointrestraintsformorethan8hours,afterhavingbeen  ,'+ sprayedwithmace,andwithoutaccesstomedicalcarefortheeffectsofthespray,ortothetoilet, e becausedisruptivebehaviorhadlongsubsided.Deferencetoprisonofficials% ? doesnotgivethem Q constitutionallicensetotortureinmates. = Williamsv.Burton,943F.2d1572(11thCir.1991).Noconstitutionalviolationfromplacementof  prisonerin4-pointrestraintswithgauzepaddingtapedovermouthinordertostopspreadof   prisondisturbanceincitedbyprisonerwhenpurposewasnottoinflictpain,purposewasnotfor   punishmentandinmatewasallowedintervalsforeating,exercise,andtoiletuse.  t Williamsv.Vidor,17F.3d857(6thCir.1994).EighthAmendmentclaimstatedwheninmatewas  L  chainedandshackledin topofbedrestraintsfor72hoursaspunishmentforrepeatedlykicking  8  celldoorandcomplainingloudlyaboutwithholdingofstereoheadphoneset,becausesuch $  treatmentisarguablyexcessive. u