No. 18-3535 I In The United States Court of Appeals For The Seventh Circuit MICHAEL JOHNSON, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, vs. SUSAN PRENTICE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES On Appeal from the United States District Court, C.D. Illinois Honorable Colin S. Bruce D.C. No. 1:16-CV-001244 BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE PROFESSORS AND PRACTITIONERS OF PSYCHIATRY, PSYCHOLOGY, AND MEDICINE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT AND REVERSAL MICHAEL P. DOSS SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP ONE SOUTH DEARBORN STREET CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60603 TELEPHONE: +1 312 853-7000 [email protected]Counsel for Amici Curiae Case: 18-3535 Document: 38 Filed: 05/08/2019 Pages: 31
31
Embed
In The United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit · 2020-07-20 · No. 18-3535 In The United States Court of Appeals For The Seventh Circuit MICHAEL JOHNSON, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
No. 18-3535
IIn The United States Court of Appeals For The
Seventh Circuit
MICHAEL JOHNSON, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
vs.
SUSAN PRENTICE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
On Appeal from the United States District Court, C.D. Illinois
Honorable Colin S. Bruce D.C. No. 1:16-CV-001244
BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE PROFESSORS AND PRACTITIONERSOF PSYCHIATRY, PSYCHOLOGY, AND MEDICINE
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT AND REVERSAL
MICHAEL P. DOSS SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP ONE SOUTH DEARBORN STREET CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60603 TELEPHONE: +1 312 853-7000 [email protected] Counsel for Amici Curiae
I. Solitary Confinement, Such As Endured by Appellant,Deprives Prisoners of Basic Humans Needs AndImposes Severe Psychological and PhysiologicalHarms. .................................................................................... 3
A. What Is “Solitary Confinement”? ............................ 3
B. Prolonged Solitary Confinement DeprivesInmates of Basic Human Needs and ImposesSevere Psychological and Physiological Harms. . 5
C. The Extended Period of Solitary ConfinementEndured By Appellant Will Predictably CauseSubstantial Psychological and PhysiologicalHarms. ......................................................................... 10
II. The Added Deprivation of Eliminating Virtually AllOutdoor Stimuli For Years Exacerbates The Harm toPrisoners in Solitary Like Appellant Without AnyApparent Corresponding Penological Benefit. ........... 14
III. The Harms Imposed On Prisoners From SolitaryConfinement Are Extreme and Atypical as Comparedto the General Prison Population. ................................. 18
Williams v. Sec’y Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 848 F.3d 549 (3d Cir. 2017) ..................................................................................................... 9
Statutes and Rules
Fed. R. App. P. 29 ...................................................................................... 1
Other Authorities
M. Ambrose and J. Rosky, Examining the Literature on Recreation and Exercise in Correctional Facilities, 2 International J. of Criminology and Sociology 362 (2013) ................ 15
Kenneth Appelbaum, American Psychiatry Should Join the Call to Abolish Solitary Confinement, 43 J. Am. Acad. Psychiatry & L. 406 (2015) ................................................................ 19
Diana Arias & Christian Otto, NASA, Defining the Scope of Sensory Deprivation for Long Duration Space Missions (2011) ................................................................................................... 14
Elizabeth Bennion, Banning the Bing: Why Extreme Solitary Confinement Is Cruel and Far Too Usual Punishment, 90 Ind. L.J. 741 (2015) .......................................................................... 9,19
M. Malter Cohen, et al., Translational Developmental Studies of Stress on Brain and Behavior, 249 Neuroscience 53 (2013) ...................................................................... 11
Stuart Grassian, Psychiatric Effects of Solitary Confinement, 22 Wash. U. J. L. & Pol’y 325 (2006) .......................................... passim
Stuart Grassian, Psychopathological Effects of Solitary Confinement, 140 Am. J. Psychiatry 1450 (2006) ............................... 8
Stuart Grassian & Terry A. Kupers, The Colorado Study vs. The Reality of Supermax Confinement, 13 Correctional Mental Health Rep. 1 (2011) ............................................................. 21
Thomas Hafemeister & Jeff George, The Ninth Circle of Hell, 90 Denv. U. L. Rev. 1 (2012) .............................................................. 20
Craig W. Haney & Mona Lynch, Regulating Prisons of the Future: A Psychological Analysis of Supermax and Solitary Confinement, 23 N.Y.U. Rev. L. & Soc. Change 477, 567 (1997) ................................................................................... 16
Craig W. Haney, The Psychological Effects of Solitary Confinement: A Systematic Critique, 47 Crime & Justice 365 (2018) .............................................................................................. 6
Craig W. Haney, Mental Health Issues in Long-Term Solitary and “Supermax” Confinement, 49 Crime & Delinquency 124 (2003) ........................................................... 7,9,12,16
Craig W. Haney, Restricting the Use of Solitary Confinement, 1 Ann. Rev. Criminology 285 (2018) .......................................... 5,19,21
Craig W. Haney Expert Report in Ashker v. Brown, No. 4:09-cv-05796-CW at 81 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2015) (available at https://ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/ Redacted_Haney%20Expert%20Report.pdf) ................................ 17,20
Lindsay M. Hayes & Joseph R. Rowan, National Study of Jail Suicides: Seven Years Later, 60 Psych. Q. 7 (1989) ................... 21
Fatos Kaba, et al., Solitary Confinement and Risk of Self-Harm Among Jail Inmates, 104 Amer. J. Pub. Health 442 (2014) .................................................................................................. 21
Richard Kozar, John McCain (Overcoming Adversity) (2002) ........... 7,13
Terry A. Kupers, Isolated Confinement: Effective Method for Behavior Change or Punishment for Punishment’s Sake?, in Routledge Handbook of International Crime and Justice Studies 213 (Bruce Arrigo & Heather Bersot eds., 2013) ............................................................................................. 5,7,17
Terry A. Kupers, Solitary: The Inside Story of Supermax Isolation and How We Can Abolish It (2017) .......................... 12,16,19
Terry A. Kupers, Waiting Alone to Die, in Living On Death Row: The Psychology of Waiting To Die 47 (Hans Toch & James Acker eds., 2018) ............................................................ 5,7,9,21
Matthew D. Lieberman, Social: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Connect (Random House, 2013) ...................................................... 5
Jules Lobel & Huda Akil, Law & Neuroscience: The Case of Solitary Confinement, 147(4) Daedalus 61 (Fall 2018) .................. 8,11
Bruce S. McEwen, et al., Stress Effects on Neuronal Structure: Hippocampus, Amygdala, and Prefrontal Cortex, 41 Neuropsychopharmacology 3 (2015) ................................ 11
Bruce C. McEwen, Protective and Damaging Effects of Stress Mediators, 338 New Eng. J. Med. 171 (1998) ................................... 10
Jeffrey L. Metzner & Jamie Fellner, Solitary Confinement and Mental Illness in U.S. Prisons: A Challenge for Medical Ethics, 38 J. Am. Acad. Psychiatry & L. 104 (2010) ..................................................................................................... 6
Carol Schaeffer, “Isolation Devastates the Brain”: The Neuroscience of Solitary Confinement, Solitary Watch (May 11, 2016) .................................................................................... 10
Dana G. Smith, Neuroscientists Make a Case Against Solitary Confinement, Scientific American (Nov. 2018) (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/neuroscientists-make-a-case-against-solitary-confinement/) .............................. 10,11
Peter Scharff Smith, The Effects of Solitary Confinement on Prison Inmates: A Brief History and Review of the Literature, 34 Crime & Just. 441 (2006) ..................................... 8,9,20
Hans Toch, Men in Crisis: Human Breakdowns in Prisons. Aldine Publishing Co.: Chicago (1975) .............................................. 17
United Nations, Interim report of the Special Rapporteur of the Human Rights Council on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (Aug. 2011), available at http://solitaryconfinement.org/uploads/ SpecRapTortureAug2011.pdf .............................................................. 6
Amici curiae are experts in psychiatry, medicine, and psychology
who have long studied solitary confinement and its psychological and
physiological effects on prisoners. Based on their work and assessment
of professional literature, amici have concluded that solitary
confinement causes substantial harm to prisoners’ mental and physical
health, depriving them of basic human needs for meaningful social
contact and positive environmental stimulation. Further, in amici’s
experience, the deprivation of social and environmental deprivation
presented in this case – with Appellant confined to his cell without
meaningful breaks for several years – is extreme even in comparison to
others in solitary confinement. Such extreme deprivation imposes
predictable injury without any apparent corresponding penological
benefit. Finally, the extreme harm arising from such solitary
1 Amici submit this brief under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29(a). Amici have filed a motion for leave to file this brief, as required by Rule 29(a)(2), as Appellees have not consented to the filing. Amici state, pursuant to Rule 29(a)(4)(E), that no counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or in part, and no person other than the amici or counsel contributed money to prepare or submit this brief.
lawsuits about prison conditions and published books and articles
on related subjects.
ARGUMENT
I. Solitary Confinement, Such As Endured by Appellant, Deprives Prisoners of Basic Humans Needs And Imposes Severe Psychological and Physiological Harms.
A. What Is “Solitary Confinement”?
“Solitary confinement,” as employed in the scientific literature and
this brief, does not refer to absolute isolation from other humans in an
environment completely devoid of positive environmental stimuli.
Indeed, amici are not aware of any prison facility in the United States
that absolutely isolates prisoners. Rather, solitary confinement as
discussed in scientific studies and analysis describes imprisonment
under conditions where meaningful social interaction and positive
environmental stimuli are severely restricted. This level of confinement
is often referred to as “segregation” in many U.S. prisons, just as was in
this case. See, e.g., ShortApp. 6 (referring to Plaintiff serving
“segregation time totaling 51 months imposed for rules violations”).
Based on the record in this case, Appellant Johnson’s isolation in
“segregation” was at least as onerous and isolating as the conditions of
(recognizing “the increasingly obvious reality that extended stays in
solitary confinement can cause serious damage to mental health”).
Injury thus is virtually inevitable from any lengthy period of solitary
confinement, even if the symptoms are not obvious or have yet to
manifest. See Diana Arias & Christian Otto, NASA, Defining the Scope
of Sensory Deprivation for Long Duration Space Missions at 43 (2011).
II. The Added Deprivation of Eliminating Virtually AllOutdoor Stimuli For Years Exacerbates The Harm toPrisoners in Solitary Like Appellant Without Any ApparentCorresponding Penological Benefit.
Prisoners in extended solitary confinement like Appellant are
especially vulnerable to further deprivations by prison officials that
increases their isolation. Here, the record shows that Appellant was
place on “yard restriction” for several years while at Pontiac, during
which time he was allowed outside to exercise only one-hour per month