Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Keith McCoy, Petitioner v. Michael Atherton, et al.

!

. Vi trry' R /?>■ n y n

■■ ’UR’-’R *- -'P R

b;

■■■■;■!

:.: IM.'.-J. .;■

U - lJ

m ri

!;R-<■< ;u?

H

I ; 1

i.M

R l.i Rjp RiRg

!

IN THE

b

<r

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES f

L 0h

Saprsroa Co-j.ri, US.

FILED

ds&SU?5

MOV 0 h 2020

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

Kpri fin /Vi ^

— PETITIONER

(Your Name)

vs.

f\/l URirf/f

ftTUdbitiL — RESPONDENT(S)

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

t?lTU£4~

(NAME OF COURT THAT LAST RULED ON MERITS OF YOUR CASE)

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

IAjy

/

(Your Name)

wall htdcmd

(Address)

a

r\

m

(City, State, Zip'Code)

1^1 n

(Phone Number)

]

I

i

QUESTION PRESENTED

1. Did the Appeals Court err though McCoy might have had a liberty interest in avoiding

transfer to a mental hospital for involuntary psychiatric treatment,see Vitex, 445 US. at 48788, that interest does not extend to his inter-prison transfer to a wig for the physical and

mentally ill, a move which did not contravene state law and did not carry the same significant

and stigmatizing consequences as transfer to a mental hospital for involuntary psychiatric

treatment

2. Did the Appeal Court err because McCoy wished to proceed pro se, we are unable to

consider issues argued in the Amicus brief that have riot been preserved or advanced by

McCoy and in his pro se appellate brief, that mean the court will not address any possible

equal protection claim or issues related to discovery ruling, issues that were advanced solely

by Amicus curiae.

3. DID the Appeal Court err McCoy Offered no evidence contradicting the jail logS account

of the Incident

usa2010@fedex.com

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Rhylonda Rhodes < rhylondar@icloud.com>

Wednesday, November 4, 2020 3:31 PM

usa2010@fedex.com

[EXTERNAL] List of Parties Air related cases

Caution! This email originated outside of FedEx. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown

or suspicious origin.

List of Parties Air related cases

John Buncich terminated:4/23/2015

Mr, Mark Kalusinki terminated 4/23/2015

Me Gentry terminated 4/23/2015

Mrs Brown terminated 4/23/2015

Mrs calvery terminated 4/23/2015

Ms Gonzales terminated 4/23/2015

Ms Kristen terminated 4/23/2015

Mr Michael terminated 4/23/2015

MrAtthenten

Mr Roberts terminated 4/23/2015

Nieces Gore

Karen Kennedy terminated 4/23/2015

Douge Thomas terminated 4/23/2015

Mr Eric terminated 4/23/2015

Ms Leto terminated 4/23/2015

Y Hogan

Ms Pierson

Joe Manchaca

Eric Boss terminated 4/23/2015

Mr Revess terminated 4/23/2015

Unknown male officer Transported him to medical separation 9/21/2012

Lake county jail terminated 4/23/2015

RELATED CASES

Table of authorities

Cases

Binning El v Long 482 f 3D 923 924-25(7th cir 2007

Antonelliv Shehan, 81 f 3D 1422 1432(7th cir 1995

Sandin v Conner,515US.472,484(1995)

l

Vitex v Jones 445. US. at 480(1980)

Youngberg v Romeo 457 US 307(1982

Yock wo v Hopkins,118 US 356(1986

Duncan v Duckworth, 664 f 2d 655(8th cir 1981

Snider intern. Corp v Town of Forest Height.MD. 739 f 3D 140,145(4th cir 2014

Farnham, 394 f 3D 469,477(7th cir 2005

Bell, 441 US 520, 535 n 16(1979

Shelby City jail inmates v Westlake 798 2d, 1085,1087(7th cir 1986)

Jackson v Duckworth 955 f 2 d 2122 (7th cir 1992

Statutes

28 U.S.C. § 1257........................................

Constitutional Provisions

United States Constitution, Amendment V

Amendment VI...........................................

1

......................................... 1, 6 United States Constitution,

5 United States Constitution, Amendment XIV................

Sent from my iPhone

2

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Petitioner respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issue to review the judgment below.

OPINIONS BELOW

M For cases from federal courts:

The opinion of the United States court of appeals appears at Appendix A__to

the petition and is

[ ] reported at

^

ivf\J

or,

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[ ] is unpublished.

The opinion of the United States district court appears at Appendix _j

the pejifion and is

[Q/reported at f mSeA W-cV; or,

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[ ] is unpublished.

[ ] For cases from state courts:

The opinion of the highest state court to review the merits appears at

Appendix_____ to the petition and is

; or,

[ ] reported at

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[ ] is unpublished.

court

The opinion of the _

to

the

petition

and

is

appears at Appendix

; or,

[ ] reported at

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[ ] is unpublished.

1.

to

JURISDICTION

[ ] For cases from federal courts:

The date on which the United States Court of Appeals decided my case

was

[ ] No petition for rehearing was timely filed in my case.

[ ] A timely petition for rehearing was denied by the United States Court of

^ <^C>d^D__, and a copy of the

Appeals on the following date:

order denying rehearing appears at Appendix_

[ ] An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted

(date) on

(date)

to and including______

in Application No.__ A

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1254(1).

[ 3 For cases from state courts:

The date on which the highest state court decided my case was

A copy of that decision appears at Appendix---------[ ] A timely petition for rehearing was thereafter denied on the following date:

____________________, and a copy of the order denying rehearing

appears at Appendix

[ ] An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted

(date) in

(date) on

to and including —_

Application No. —A

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1257(a).

9

X

usa2010@fedex.com

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Rhylonda Rhodes < rhylondar@icloud.com>

Wednesday, November 4, 2020 3:27 PM

usa2010@fedex.com

[EXTERNAL]

Constitutional and statutory provisions involved

1.1 Article 14 of the Constitution of India reads as under: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and

subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall

make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any

State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its

jurisdiction the equal protection

Sent from my iPhone

l

)

usa2010@fedex.com

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Rhylonda Rhodes <rhylondar@icloud.com>

Wednesday, November 4, 2020 3:25 PM

usa2010@fedex.com

[EXTERNAL] STATEMENT OF CASE

Caution! This email originated outside of FedEx. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown

or suspicious origin.

STATEMENT OF CASE

In Sandin The protections of the Due Process Clause, both substantive and procedural, may be triggered when the State,

by the affirmative acts of its agents, subjects an involuntarily confined individual to deprivations of liberty which are not

among those generally authorized by his confinement. See, e.g., Whitley v. Albers, supra, 475 U.S., at 326-327,106 S.Ct.,

at 1087-1088 (shooting inmate); Youngberg v. Romeo, supra, 457 U.S., at 316,102 S.Ct., at 2458 (shackling involuntarily

committed mental patient); Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5,11,101 S.Ct. 173,177, 66 LEd.2d 163 (1980) (removing mmate

from general prison population and confining him to administrative segregation); Vitek v. Jones, 445

'

100 S.Ct. 1254,1262-1264,63 L.Ed.2d 552 (1980) (transferring inmate to mental health facility ‘

'

In vitex- This court held Appellee, a convicted felon, was transferred from state prison to a mental hospital pursuant to a

Nebraska statute (§ 83-180(1)) which provides that, if a designated physician or psychologist finds that a prisoner

"suffers from a mental disease or defect" that "cannot be given proper treatment" in prison, the Director of Correctional

Services may transfer the prisoner to a mental hospital. In an action challenging the constitutionality of § 83-180(1 on

procedural due process grounds, the District Court declared the statute unconstitutional as applied to appeHee, holding

that transferring him to the mental hospital without adequate notice and opportunity for a hearing deprived him o

liberty without due process of law contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment, and that such transfers must be

accompanied by adequate notice, an adversary hearing before an independent decisionmaker, a written statement by

the factfinder of the evidence relied on and the reasons for the decision, and the availability of appointed counsel for

indigent prisoners. The court permanently enjoined the State from transferring appellee (who meanwhile had been

transferred back to prison) to the mental hospital without following the prescribed procedures. Subsequently, appellee

was paroled on condition that he accept mental treatment, but he violated that parole and was returned to prison.

Relying on appellee's history of mental illness and the State's representation that he was a serious threat to his own and

others' safety* the District Court held that the parole and revocation thereof did not render the case moot, because

appellee was still subject to being transferred to the mental hospital.

Held: The judgment is affirmed as modified. Pp. 445 U. S. 486-497; 445 U. S. 497-500.

THE TRANSFER OF MCCOY TO THE MENTAL HEALTH FLOOR:

The Last few times McCoy have been housed at the lake county jail tha classification sgt have forced him to be housed

on the mental health floor were he was infear for his health and safety I'd de 56

Oh September 20, 2012.McCoy was incarcerated and booked into the lake county jai!.SA201. At the time, McCoy woi.e

Nail polish on his fingernails .Id. During the booking process he was screened for medical issues and cleared. SA201 •

02-SA157 A mental health official reported That McCoy" feels safe in (general population)'^ is suitable to go into

gen' era I population without threat to his sexuality. SA171:seeSA201 .Therefore.McCoy was assigned to general

population housing.SA201-02:SA157,

When McCoy was in the general populated cell with those who were also done with the booking intake process and

waiting to be confined to a lake county assigned housing section , McCoy then seen Niecey Gore who use to Force him

to be house on the mental health floor Even though he had been cleared by medical and mental health, McCoy felt that

The Wardon was there to have the classification department sgt pull him out the grounp of inmates a place him back on

the mental health floor. The classification sgt then came, when the classification department sgt called McCoy name he

then had to walk pass Niecey Gore,

While being transferred to general population housing unit. McCoy was singled out by Sergeant Jose Menchaca.SA76.

Menchaca noticed McCoys fingernail polish and act like he did not want to touch McCoy. SA 77.Menchaca Sent other

detainees to their housing sections with another officer. I'd. Menchaca then separately placed McCoy m general

After an houror two, And without notice or cause, McCoy was removed to a medical segregation cell. SA157;SA77-78.

McCoy's cell was effectively solitary confinement cell and for inmates with a contagion Diease and are mental defect

When McCoy was Placed on the mental floor Guards placed him In an unclean cell in the cell their was hair on the bed

Podium, a yellow stained Piece of toilet paper stuck to the floor on the side of the bed then seen to be the last inmate

bodily fluids ,hair and soap cum in the sink from the last inmate shaving and Urion on toilet set,

Gaurds and medical staff denied him a pen to write the classification department to be moved,

After being placed in medical segregation .McCoy was giving an Anniversary hearing for every one placed on the mental

health floor see SA162.SA271.McCoy told the medical staff that he has been cleared to be with the general population

and believe that he had been placed in medical segregation due to discrimination based on his sexual orientation

SA16:see also A5.Medical staff clear McCoy a second time is suitable for general population.Yet did not remove him

despite he was misclassed either,

Guards denied McCoy a grievance McCoy called the Guard a bitchThe guard then retaliated against McCoy by placing

him with the more mentally III inmates on the mental health floor then he usually went to range with, refused to take

McCoy to appointment with mental health staff Shut off his phone call,

Next lie To a state inspector during a state inspection on the mental health floor to keep him on the medical floor,by

telling him McCoy was placed on the mental health floor by mental health staff for mental health reasons after the

noticed their Was not a sticker on McCoy cell door to address was he placed on the floor by medical or mental

inspector

health staff,

Next Shut off his water in cell that McCoy was using Flushing his toilet Repeatedly to block out a inmate on the mental

health floor telling inmates LG and medical staff Forced McCoy to be housed on medical floor because he had Aids and

miss with little kids, Guards feed him

suecide meals and placed him on 30 min ranges when he surprise to get a full hour

SA205;SA162,

Next McCoy went to court ,when he came back Guards placed him in a suicide cell,were there was fetus still Visabe on

the wall and Straight across from a inmate McCoy had been Arguing with,and had been telling the inmates LCJ, and

medical staff was froceing him to be housed on the medical floor because McCoy had aids a miss with little kids

A Guard then placed McCoy cleared by mental health on range with inmates placed on the floor by mental health staff

health and stabbed in the leg served times With a piece of aa broken broom handle, guards and medical staff

not taken for medical care until a day later, when a nurse came around and

responded to the incident, McCoy was

McCoy told the nurse that he was still Bleeding,

Guard open him mail marked legal not infront of him,

Guards failed to take him to court despite he had court

1.

Procedural History

McCoy who had been placed on mental health floor dispite his clearance by mental health brought c.vil rights action

against classification officer, warden,doctor during his anniversary hearing and the Sheriff because the classification sgt

placed him on the mental health floor dispite his and mental health Evaluator had determined this was unnecessary,

warden for retaliation for giving the classification department sgt the ok, the doctor performances anniversary hearing

because he did not remove him out of medical segregation Despite he was missed class either and the Sheriff For failure

to Train and supervise

McCoy sued gaurds, medical staff because he was placed in a in unclean cell on the mental floor and they did not give

him cleaning serplys

Sued A Guard because

floor

she denied him a pen to write the classification department to be moved of the mental health

Sued A Guard because they denied him a grievance to file to be move out the mental floor

Sued A Guard because she retaliated against him by shutting off his cell water, feeding him sucide meal and placing him

on 30 min range when he supposed to get a four hour and

Sued guards .medical staff who had received complaints that he was placed

. . _

,

on the mental health floor dispite his clearance by mental health staff, and he was being retaliated against by a gaur

by shutting off his water in cell, feeding him sucide mealsj and by placing him on 30min ranges and they did not protect

him from the mistreatment by the Gaurd

Sued mental health staff and Warden because they received complaints that he was placed on the mental health flow

dispite his clearance, A Guards were retaliating against him, by denying him a grievance, shut off water in ceH, feed him

suicide meals and thet the gaurd were now retaliating against him by placing him in a suicide cell and they did not

protect him from the mistreatment and or move him out the sucide cell

Sued guards because they-placed him on range with the inmates placed on the the floor by mental health staff with a

room

aswe^as Guardi and mldiTal staff who failed*) take him for medical care in which he was in a fight with another

inmate and stabbed server! times in the leg with a peace of a broken broom handle,

Sued guards because they open his mail marked legal not in front of him and

Sued guards because they

failed to take him for court

The

district court then held that McCoy was unhappy about nearly Aspect of treatment he received at Lake county jail

but the only to causes of action does he identify McCoy will

Seceeed in stateingo causes of actions is one is that Niecey Gore placed him on the Mental health floor despite h.s

mental health evaluator had Determine this was unnecessary and

second against Guards who failed to take him for medical care in which he was in a fight with another Inmates and stabs

Several times In the leg with a peace of a broken broom Handle officers responded to the incident and McCoy was not

taken to medical care until a day or two when a Nurse came around and he told her his leg was still bleeding

McCoy then filed a motion to reconsider the named lake county medical provider and staff because they did not move

him off the mental health floor dispute he was misclassed either I'd at De24

The district court then held McCoy motion to reconsider denied because In De Jesus Odom 578 578

Fed.Appx.698,600(7th cir.3014), the Seventh Circuit upheld a grant of summary judgment for defendants where the

defendants did not make any decisions or were not Personally involved in the placement decision leading to a Prisoner

administration Segregation

Second Plaintiff contentions to any public employee who knows or should know about a Ro must do something to fix it is

just an effort evade,By indirection, Monell's rule that pubic employees are Responsible for On but not for everyone else

s, section 1983 establishes a species of tort law liability, and one distinctive feature of this nations' tort law is that there

is no general duty to rescue.

McCoy then filed a motion to reconsider the medical staff because he also said medical state also failed to take him fo

medical care in which he was on a fight with another inmates and stabbed served times in the leg with a peace of a

broken broom handle

The district court then held that it read the complaint and determined that their was only two claims does it identify

states a cause of action one is that Nlecey Gore placed him on the mental health floor dispite his clearance and

second against guards" who failed to take him for medical care in which he was in a fight with another inmates and

stabbed in the leg served times with a peace of a broom handle

The District Court granted summary judgment for the Remaining Defendants

2. Direct appeal

McCoy asked this court if the rest of the defendants and claim the judge dismissed state a cause of action

And renewed his claims defendants violated his due process And equal protectionaccording to vitex v Jones

The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed, 812 F.2d 298 (1987), holding that petitioners had not made out an

actionable § 1983 claim for two alternative reasons. First, the court held to Establish a due process violation,McCoy

needed to present evidence that the defendant deprive him of a liberty interest by imposing an atypical and significan

hardship on (him)in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life "Sandin v Conner,SISUS472,^!^),taking

together the conditions and duration of his term in segregation, see Marion v Columbia core. I still, 559 f 3D 693 697

(7th cir 2009).Accepting McCoys Characterization that He lived in a dirty cell near physical and mentally III'nmates hjs

conditions were not so atypical and significantly harsh as to implicate a liberty interest: see eg, Hardaway v Meyerhoff,

734 F. 740 744 (7th cir 2013)(

Moreover, He was not segregated for only three months, which, given The circumstances of his confinement,It's

generally not long enough to trigger due process protections, see Marion, 559 f 3D at 6 9 7 - 97 n2(Characterzing up o

90 days And segregation as a relatively short period,Depending on the condition and imposed). Though McCoy may have

a liberty interest in avoiding transfer to a mental hospital for involuntary psychiatric treatment, see v, ex, 445 US at 487

•88 That interest does not extend to his intro prison transfer to a wing for the physical and mentally ill,a move which did

not contravene state law and did not carrothe same significant and stigmating consequences as transfer to a mental

hospital for involuntary psychiatric treatment

Mr McCoy filed a petition for re- hearing with the Seventh circuit appeals court, renewing his argument that defendants

acts violated his due process according to vitex v. Jones and or equal protection, and that he turned in evidence to

support his medical claims at

The Savanth Circuit denied the petition for rehearing, Justice: IIANA DIMOND ROVNER,MICHAEL B BRENNAN AMY J ST

it judges dissented from the order pointed out All members of the original panel vote to deny a petition for

EVE circu

rehearing August 5, 2020

usa2010@fedex.com

Rhylonda Rhodes <rhylondar@icloud.com>

Wednesday, November 4, 2020 3:28 PM

usa2010@fedex.com

[EXTERNAL] Reasons for granting the petition

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Caution! This

email originated outside of FedEx. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown I

or suspicious origin.

I

Reasons for granting the petition

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

n

. n

A. To avoid erroneous deprivations of a liberty protected by the Due process this Court should clarify the "initiation

standard under Sandin that applies when the affirmative acts of its agents, subjects an involuntarily confined individual

to deprivations of liberty which are not among those generally authorized by his confinement

A liberty interest

The purpose of the due process is generally not to Keep the government from doing certain things all together,But

rather to keep it from acting an Obituary and unfair Manor. When you have a liberty Interst protected by the due

process clausejail and prison officials must provide you with fair treatment.ln. 1995 This court, in Sandin v Conner,

limited the due process protections of Prisoners,holding that in -prison Restrictions deprive them of liberty within the

meeting of the due process clause Only If The restrictions impose atypical and significant hardship on inmate in relation

to the ordinary incidents of prison life

What is article in significant hardship ? 1 court has held that it is something significant worse than the most restrictive

conditions that prison officials, Exercising their administrative authority to ensure institutional safety and good

order,Routinely imposed on inmates serving similar sentences. For example officials at your prison routinely Place

Inmates in administrative segregation units for various reasons.To have a liberty interest you must be subject to

conditions significantly worse than conditions in the Prison

Due process clause were only required procedural protection in connection with a transfer of a convicted prisoner If

transfer Of a convicted prisoner Deprive the prisoner of a right That is independently protected by the Constitution,Or if

it imposes atypical and significant hardship ralative To ordinary incidence of prison Conditions Sandin v Conner 515 at

472 484 115s 2293(1995)And example of the first category the only example we know at this pointjls transfer to a

mental hospital,Which requires to process protection in the form of commitment hearing vitex v Jones 445 is 480 494-96

100s ct 1264(1980)And example of the second (again,The only one we know of)land the second is transfers to a high

security Supermax unit for potentially definiteOf time under extreme harsh and Restrictive Conditions Wilkins v Austen

545 at 208 223-24 125 s ct 354(2005)

Here, the court of Appeals accepted the district court finding that defendantlose Menchaca placed McCoy on the menta

health floor Despite his mental health evaluater had determined this was a necessary.,The court also did not disturb the

district courts finding that mr McCoy had been in General population at the time he was transfers to Administrative

segregation on the mental health floor, The court also conceded that officers trasfering McCoy to the mental health

floor despite his Mental health evaluate had determined this was unnecessary could qualify as a due process violation

.Nonetheless,the Seventh circuit Appeal court reasoned that the Record,However,Fails to demonstrate that defendants

violated McCoy due process rights,to Establish a due process violation,McCoy needed to present evidence that the

defendant deprive him of a liberty interest by imposing an atypical and significant hardship on (him)in relation to the

ordinary incidents of prison life "Sandin v Conner,515US472,484(1995),taking together the conditions and duration of

his term in segregation, see Marion v Columbia core. I still, 559 f 3D 693 697 (7th cir 2009).Accepting McCoys

Characterization that He lived in a dirty cell near physical and mentally I'll inmates, his conditions were not so atypical

and significantly harsh as to implicate a liberty interest: see eg, Hardaway v Meyerhoff, 734 F. 740 744 (7th cir 2013)(

Moreover, He was not segregated for only three months, which, given The circumstances of his confinement,It's

generally not long enough to trigger due process protections, see Marion, 559 f 3D at 6 9 7 - 97 n2(Characterzing up to

90 days In segregation as a relatively short period,Depending on the condition and imposed). Though McCoy may have a

liberty interest in avoiding transfer to a mental hospital for involuntary psychiatric treatment, see vitex, 445 US. at 487 88,That interest does not extend to his intro prison transfer to a wing for the physical and mentally ill,a move which did

not contravene state law and did not carrothe same significant and stigmating consequences as transfer to a mental

hospital for involuntary psychiatric treatment

The decision by the Court of Appeals is plainly incorrect, as it both contradicts the bright-line holding of Sandin and the

express purpose of the rule. The analytical starting point of Sandin is that given a volid conviction, The criminal

defendant has been Constitutionally deprived of his Liberty to the extent that the state may confine Him and subject

him to the rules of its prison system so long as the conditions of confinement do not otherwise Violate the

Constitution....Confinement in any of the state institution is within the normal limits or range of custody which the

*

conviction has authorize the state to impose

This case presents this Court with an opportunity to clarify the Sandin ’ "initiation" standard when the affirmative acts of

its agents, subjects an involuntarily confined individual to deprivations of liberty which are not among those generally

authorized by his confinement

the Seventh circuit Court of Appeals' published decision will work to undermine the carefully-crafted procedural

safeguards that this Court has spent the past 50 years Developing

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

A.

Several of the Courts of Appeals have read this language as implying that once the State learns that a third party poses a

special danger to an identified victim, and indicates its willingness to protect the victim against that danger, a "special

relationship" arises between State and victim, giving rise to an affirmative duty, enforceable through the Due Process

Clause, to render adequate protection. See Estate of Bailey by Oare v. County of York, 768 F.2d 503, 510-511 (CA3 1985),

Jensen v. Conrad, 747 F.2d 185,190-194, and n. 11 (CA4 1984) (dicta), cert, denied, 470 U.S. 1052 (1985)); Balistreri v.

Pacifica Police Dept., 855 F.2d 1421,1425-1426 (CA9 1988). But see, in addition to the opinion of the Seventh Circuit

below, Estate of Gilmore v. Buckley, 787 F.2d 714, 720-723 (CAl), cert, denied, 479 U.S. 882 (1986); Harpole v. Arkansas

Dept, of Human Services, 820 F.2d 923, 926-927 (CA8 1987); Wideman v. Shallowford Community Hospital Inc., 826 F.2d

1030,1034-1037 (CA111987).

Here the district court Except McCoy statement McCoy was placed on the floor by gaurd, he complained about this to

guards and medical personal non who went against the plain and moved m

*fn5 To make out an Eighth Amendment claim based on the failure to provide adequate medical care, a prisoner must

show that the state defendants exhibited "deliberate indifference" to his "serious" medical needs; the mere negligent or

inadvertent failure to provide adequate care is not enough. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S., at 105-106. In Whitley v. Albers,

475 U.S. 312 (1986), we suggested that a similar state of mind is required to make out a substantive due process claim in

the prison setting. Id., at 326-327.

fnfa The Eighth Amendment applies "only after the State has complied with the constitutional guarantees traditionally

associated with criminal prosecutions.... he State does not acquire the power to punish with which the Eighth

Amendment is concerned until after it has secured a formal adjudication of guilt in accordance with due process of law."

Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 671-672, n. 40 (1977); see also Revere v. Massachusetts General Hospital, 463 U.S.

239, 244 (1983); Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535, n. 16 (1979).

Even in this situation, we have recognized that the State "has considerable discretion in determining the nature and

scope of its responsibilities." Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S., at 317.

*fr$8 Of course, the protections of the Due Process Clause, both substantive and procedural, may be triggered when the

by the affirmative acts of its agents, subjects an involuntarily confined individual to deprivations of liberty which

State,

. not among those generally authorized by his confinement. See, e. g., Whitley v. Albers, supra, at 326-327 (shooting

are

inmate); Youngberg v. Romeo, supra, at 316 (shackling involuntarily committed mental patient); Hughes v. Rowe, 449

U.S. 5,11 (1980) (removing inmate from general prison population and confining him to administrative segregation),

Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480,491-494 (1980) (transferring inmate to mental health facility).

Here the court

Dddddddddxdddxxxxxxxxxxccccc

CONCLUSION

The petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

Date: