Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout97-5620 EquityCOMMONWEALTH OF PA., DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AT CAMP HILL, Plaintiff VS. MICHAEL STEWART Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 97-5620 EQUITY CIVIL ACTION - EQUITY IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO RULE 1925 The instant appeal is from our order of the 17th of October, 1997, granting the request of the plaintiff for a preliminary injunction. By that order, we allowed the plaintiff to examine and perform invasive diagnostic tests involuntarily on the defendant, a prisoner at the State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill ("SCI-Camp Hill"), and administer medical treatment, including nutrition and hydration, as may, in the opinion of the medical staff, be necessary to preserve the defendant's health and life. In the event that the defendant takes his meals in accordance with the established dining procedures, the plaintiff is barred from using the involuntary treatment. Our hearing on October 14, 1997, has led us to the following factual findings. The defendant, Michael Stewart, is presently incarcerated at SCI-Camp Hill in the special management unit. The special management unit opened in 1992 as a pilot program whereby superintendents of every male correctional institution could recommend that particularly aggressive and assaultive inmates be placed in the unit. Most of the cells are constructed with a plexiglass shield bolted to the door. It covers an opening in the door measuring approximately thirty inches high by six inches wide, a solid strip in the middle of the door and another opening of equal measurements on the other side of the 97-5620 EQUITY strip. Many of the plexiglass shields have become "opaque" due to the inmates spitting or throwing food and other substances onto it. In order for a guard to see into the cell the inmate must turn on the light inside of the cell. The policy of the unit mandates that the prisoner turn on his light before the cell door will be opened for the prisoner to receive his meal tray. Mr. Stewart, at the time of the hearing, had engaged in five hunger strikes, during which he would refuse to mm on his light in order for the guard to open the cell door and provide him his meal. Mr. Stewart's hunger strikes ranged from missing thirteen or fourteen meals to twenty- seven meals. Each hunger strike ended with Mr. Stewart being taken to a psychiatric observation cell where he was fed in a cell in which the lighting was controlled by the staff. Our order, from which the defendant appeals, allows the plaintiff to force-feed the defendant whenever deemed necessary by the medical staff. Mr. Stewart may avoid these procedures only by accepting his meals in accordance with the unit's policy. Our order, we believe, simply maintains the status quo in a manner that is least inconvenient to the parties. follows: With respect to preliminary injunctions, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has stated as Three criteria have been established for the granting of a preliminary injunction ... They are: (1) the preliminary injunction must be necessary to prevent immediate harm which could not be compensated for by damages; (2) greater injury would result from the denial of the preliminary injunction than from the granting of it; and (3) it would operate to restore the parties to the status quo as it existed prior to the alleged wrongful conduct. In addition, to meet all three criteria, the court must be convinced that [plaintiffs] right to a preliminary injunction is clear ... and general equity jurisdiction must be warranted. 97-5620 EQUITY Committee of Seventy v, Albert, 33 Pa. Commw. 44, 49, 381 A.2d 188, 190 (1977)(quoting Credit Alliance Corp. v. Philadelphia Minit Man Car Wash Corp., 450 Pa. 367, 371,301 A.2d 816, 818 (1973)). "In order to obtain a preliminary injunction, the movant must... 'make a strong showing that it is likely to prevail on the merits' and ... 'show that without such relief [the movant] would be irreparably injured.'" Enterra Corporation v. SGS Associates, 600 F.Supp. 678, 683 (E.D.Pa. 1987) (quoting Klitzman, Klitzman & Gallagher v. Krut, 744 F.2d 955, 958-59 (3d Cir. 1984)). A preliminary injunction which is more than restrictive or prohibitory - which goes to beyond restraint and commands action - is reserved for "unusual cases." Soja v. Factoryville Sportsmen's Club, 361 Pa. Super. 473,477, 522 A.2d 1129, 1131 (1987). We believe this to be an tmusual case. The Commonwealth presented testimony that Mr. Stewart's repeated hunger strikes would adversely impact the level of discipline required for the management of the unit. William Ward, unit manager of the special management unit, testified that the inmates were watching this situation closely as they are a very distrusting group and must be shown that the staff is trustworthy and will intervene to prevent a prisoner from hurting himself. Mr. Ward further testified that if Mr. Stewart was successful in being fed in his dark cell, he would be holding prison officials hostage. The other prisoners would then expect that if there was a policy with which they do not agree, they could simply use Mr. Stewart's technique. Not only would Mr. Stewart's ultimate demise lead to hostility and distrust among the inmates, but, if he were 3 97-5620 EQUITY otherwise successful, other inmates may try to manipulate the system in the same manner. The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania has held that the Commonwealth's interest in prison security and discipline outweigh any right of privacy a prisoner may have. Commonwealth of Pa., Dept. of Public Welfare, Fairview State Hospital v, Kallinger, 134 Pa. Commw. 415,421,580 A.2d 887, 890 (1990). Although Mr. Stewart never addressed his right of privacy, but rather argued that this litigation was a "test of wills," we felt the issue was whether the Commonwealth's interests in maintaining prison security outweighs Mr. Stewart's right to refuse to be fed.~ The Commonwealth Court has stated that the Commonwealth has an "overwhelming interest in maintaining prison security, order and discipline" and quoted the Supreme Court in stating that "maintaining institutional security and preserving internal order and discipline are essential goals that may require limitation or retraction of the detained constitutional rights of ... convicted prisoners." Id~ (quoting Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 546 (1979)). We believe that the security interests involved are of the magnitude that compel prison officials to enforce the prison roles through this preliminary injunction. The prison officials can curtail the prisoner's freedoms whenever they determine that there is a likelihood that the inmate's actions will disrupt prison order, stability or otherwise interfere with legitimate penological objectives. Id.__~., 580 A.2d at 890-91. In order to enforce these rules prison official are given great discretion in governing the prison. Id._:. at 421,580 A.2d at 890. Included in this i Mr. Stewart maintains that he has never refused a meal that was placed in front of him. We believe he is doing just that by not turning on his light in order for the guard to give him his tray, thereby effectively refusing to be fed. 4 97-5620 EQUITY discretion is the ability to take measures to preserve human life. Id., at 422, 580 A.2d at 891. Pennsylvania is not alone in holding that compelled nutrition and medical treatment are proper. The Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, in Van Holden v. Chapman, 87 A.D.2d 66, 450 N.Y.S.2d 623 (1982), held that the state could feed the inmate through a. nasogastric tube because the state's interest in prison security and administration includes the right to prevent suicide. In State ex. rel. White v. Narick, __ W.Va. ,292 S.E.2d 54 (1982), the West Virginia Supreme Court allowed the force-feeding of a prisoner because the state's interest in preserving the prisoner's life is greater than his personal privacy. Furthermore, the Supreme Court of Rhode Island, in Laurie v. Senecal., 666 A.2d 806 (1995), held that the state's interests in preserving life and preventing suicide overrides the fight of a prisoner who is not suffering from a terminal illness to commit suicide. We believe that allowing Mr. Stewart to receive his meals without the cell light being turned on would cause a serious interference with prison procedures and could only lead to more disruptions inside of the prison. In particular, a unit housing the most disruptive prisoners in the system has to be orderly and stability is to be maintained at all times. Based on the Commonwealth's interests in preserving the inmates' health, preventing suicide and not allowing prison security and order to be disturbed, we feel these circumstances necessitate that the preliminary injunction be granted and the prison is to have the ability to maintain order. January 8, 19985 Kev~~, J. ~/~ /~ 97-5620 EQUITY Robert M. Wolff, Esquire For the Commonwealth Michael Stewart Pro Se :rlm 6