James v. Hedrick
| Decision Date | 10 April 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 99-2361,99-2361 |
| Parties | (8th Cir. 2000) Thomas James Papantony, Appellant, v. Bill Hedrick, Warden, United States Medical Center for Federal Prisoners, Appellee. Submitted: |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri
Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, BEAM, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.
Thomas James Papantony was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm. In November 1997, he was found incompetent to stand trial and was committed to a federal mental health center. At the federal mental health center, he was diagnosed with delusional disorder and treated against his will with antipsychotic drugs. Papantony then filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming a violation of his substantive right under the Due Process Clause not to be forcibly administered antipsychotic drugs to render him competent to stand trial. The district court dismissed his petition, and Papantony appeals.
Initially, we conclude the petition was properly dismissed because the requested remedy would provide no relief from the alleged constitutional violation. Papantony now voluntarily takes the antipsychotic drugs, so there is no longer any forced administration. It also does not appear Papantony will be brought to trial because the government is attempting to place him in an Illinois state hospital facility. Lastly, Papantony does not argue the alleged constitutional violation entitles him to release from the federal mental health center. So, Papantony's habeas petition is properly dismissed because granting the petition would be meaningless. See, e.g., Allen v. Duckworth, 6 F.3d 458, 460 (7th Cir. 1993).
In dismissing the habeas petition, we recognize the legality of the initial forced medication remains unresolved. We also recognize Papantony is a pro se petitioner and, as such, should not unreasonably be subjected to stringent procedural niceties. See, e.g., Miles v. Ertl Co., 722 F.2d 434 (8th Cir. 1983). These factors lead us to conclude Papantony's petition should be broadly interpreted as a request for any remedy available in a challenge of the initial forced medication. See Young v. Armontrout, 795 F.2d 55, 56 (8th Cir. 1986) (). Thus, we construe Papantony's complaint as a Bivens 1 action for damages resulting from an alleged violation of his substantive due process right not to be forcibly administered antipsychotic drugs to render him competent for trial.
At this point, we generally would remand the case to the district court to address Papantony's Bivens claim. See Young, 795 F.2d at 56. In this instance, however, remand is unnecessary because a cursory review reveals his claim would fail as a matter of law.
Papantony's claim is most obviously flawed because the government officials involved in the forced administration of the antipsychotic drugs are immune from suit. A...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ferch v. Jett
...held that the right not to be involuntarily medicated is not a clearly established constitutional right, citing Papantony v. Hedrick, 215 F.3d 863 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam). "The Supreme Court has recognized that 'an individual has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in avoidin......
-
Hohn v. U.S.
...the convict's motion moot. Lane v. Williams, 455 U.S. 624, 631 (1982). We interpret pro se habeas filings liberally. Papantony v. Hedrick, 215 F.3d 863, 865 (8th Cir. 2000). Although entitled "Federal Custody; remedies on motion attacking sentence," § 2255 is available to attack convictions......
-
U.S. v. Keeven, 499CR0445SNL(MLM).
...193 F.3d at 264 quoting Riggins v. Nevada, 504 U.S. 127, 135, 112 S.Ct. 1810, 118 L.Ed.2d 479 (1992); see also Papantony v. Hedrick, 215 F.3d 863, 865 (8th Cir.2000). The court would have to determine that medication during trial posed no significant risk of altering or impairing defendant'......
-
Rivera v. Saris
...619 (1971) (recognizing a damages cause of action for violation of constitutional rights by federal officials); see alsoPapantony v. Hedrick, 215 F.3d 863, 865 (8th Cir.2000) (broadly construing pro se petition alleging constitutional violation against federal officials as a Bivens action).......
-
Review Proceedings
...2015) (summary dismissal proper because petitioner did not ask state supreme court to review constitutional claims); Papantony v. Hedrick, 215 F.3d 863, 864-65 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (summary dismissal proper because remedy would not provide relief); Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687......