On June 9, 2017, three mentally ill prisoners of the U.S. Penitentiary at Lewisburg (USP Lewisburg) filed this class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The case was assigned to Judge Yvette Kane. The plaintiffs sued the Federal Bureau of Prisons, alleging that the defendants’ failure to provide adequate treatment for prisoners with mental illness constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The plaintiffs alleged that they were deprived of medication, received puzzles and coloring pages in lieu of treatment, and had five-minute conversations in the public showers with mental health professionals instead of formal therapy sessions. Represented by the Pennsylvania Institutional Law Project, Washington Lawyers’ Committee, and private counsel, the plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief.

On August 11, 2017, the plaintiffs moved for class certification. The class would consist of all persons who were, as of the filing date of the complaint in this case, or are now, or will be in the future, confined to the custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons in the United States Penitentiary Lewisburg and suffer from a Serious Mental Illness or a Mental Illness, requiring treatment under one or more of the BOP’s CARE levels.

On October 2, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim or, in the alternative, a motion for summary judgement. In the two weeks after filing this motion, the defendants filed a motion to stay the plaintiff’s motion for class certification pending their motion to dismiss and a statement of material facts containing records of the plaintiff’s interactions with mental health services. The defendant argued that the plaintiffs’ complaint did not sufficiently demonstrate that the defendants did not provide treatment; rather, it merely demonstrated that the plaintiffs disagreed with the treatments that the medical professionals prescribed for them. On December 7, 2017, the court granted the defendants’ motion to stay class certification until after the defendants’ motion to dismiss was decided.

On June 20, 2018, Magistrate Judge Schwab issued a report recommending that the defendants’ motion to dismiss be denied. She found that the plaintiffs had not raised separate Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim, and so the defendants could not move to dismiss on that basis, but invited the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint if they did intend to raise an Eighth Amendment claim on conditions. With regard to the Eighth Amendment medical care claims, the Magistrate Judge found that the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged facts to state a claim, and so denied the motion to dismiss on that basis as well. The defendants also argued that the plaintiffs' complaint violated the favorable termination rule (by challenging the duration of their confinement), but the Magistrate Judge recommended that the court temporarily deny the motion to dismiss on that objection. The plaintiffs objected to the recommendation saying that they did not challenge the duration of their confinement, nor did they raise Eighth Amendment conditions claims.

Rebecca Strauss - 06/07/2018
Abigail DeHart - 08/02/2018


compress summary