# White v. Napoleon

> Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · February 23, 1990 · 897 F.2d 103

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8978195

## Case

- **Full name:** Norwood L. WHITE, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated v. John J. NAPOLEON. Appeal of Norwood L. WHITE, Daniel Sabb, Emilio Baez Nazario and Calvin Merle Rogers
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
- **Decided:** February 23, 1990
- **Citations:** 897 F.2d 103; 1990 WL 15531
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Seitz
- **Judges:** Becker, Cowen, Seitz
- **Cited by:** 742 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8978195

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- recognizing inmates’ substantive due process right to be free from retaliation for exercising right to be informed of medical treatment; and noting that prison officials “may compel a prisoner to accept treatment when prison officials, in the exercise of professional judgment,…
- explaining that similar to an inmate’s disagreement with a doctor’s professional judgment, no claim is stated when a doctor disagrees with the professional judgment of another doctor since there may be several acceptable ways to treat a medical condition
- concluding that prison officials may act with deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious medical needs when they “intentionally deny[ ] or delay[ ] access to medical care . . . or intentionally interf[ere] with the treatment once prescribed’
- finding complaint stated an Eighth Amendment claim by alleging doctor “insisted on continuing courses of treatment that the doctor knew were painful, ineffective or entailed substantial risk of serious harm to the prisoners.”
- explaining that prisoners “retain a limited right to refuse treatment,” which must be balanced against valid state interests, and that retaliation against a prisoner for exercising that right is actionable

## Opinion text

SEITZ, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
It is most regrettable, in my view, that this court is confronted in this delicate area with the necessity of formulating important legal principles in the isolated setting on an appeal from an order dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim. I believe the court would agree that it would have been far preferable that these principles be formulated in light of an adversarily developed record. Since that course seems unavailable to us, I note my general agreement with the court.
As to part IV of the opinion of the court, I write separately to make clear my basic constitutional position on one area of medical treatment of prisoners. I agree with the court that prisoners are entitled to sufficient disclosures by prison doctors to enable them to decide whether to undergo the treatment or use the prescribed medication and that such an entitlement is entitled to constitutional protection because of their incarcerated status. I also believe an informed and competent prisoner is constitutionally free, based on a liberty interest, to reject treatment and medication as a general rule. This is so because no countervailing state interest is implicated.
I do not think the allegations of this complaint raise any issue as to the right of the state to impose medication or other treatment on a prisoner against his or her will when the prisoner’s condition may, medically speaking, impose a threat to the prison community. In such a situation, different constitutional concerns would be implicated.
With these understandings, I concur in the opinion of the court.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8978195. Public record. Not legal advice.