According to a case brought by a Delaware prison inmate who asserted that he was denied his constitutional rights by being placed in solitary confinement because of his mental condition, a federal appeals court is slated to hear arguments.

Solitary And Mentally Ill

During the hearing on Wednesday, the appeals court will hear arguments in the case of Angelo Lee Clark, who claims he was denied his right to sufficient medical care while held in solitary confinement.

Last year, a federal court jury found in favor of Delaware prison officials, prompting Clark’s attorneys to file an appeal with the Supreme Court. According to the verdict, prison officials did not violate Clark’s rights when they placed him in solitary confinement or denied him access to proper medical care.

Clark, who was 66 at the time of his death, passed away in January. The appellant in this instance is a family member who is acting on his or her behalf.

Solitary And Mentally Ill

Records show that Clark was detained at the James T. Vaughn Correctional Center from 2004 to 2019, when he was transferred to an inpatient treatment center for psychiatric patients.

The individual was hospitalized for major mental illnesses while in prison, including manic depression, antisocial personality disorder, and paranoid schizophrenia, all of which were treated.

Solitary confinement was utilized to detain Clark for fifteen days in 2015 and for seven months the following year.

According to Clark’s attorneys, he was placed in solitary confinement as revenge for his mental illness, his use of a loud voice, and a few minor rule violations.

Solitary And Mentally Ill

It was claimed by them, among other things, that placing a severely mentally ill prisoner in solitary confinement despite the fact that the negative effects of such punishment are well known constitutes to cruel and unusual punishment. In a petition to dismiss, prison officials asserted that they were protected by qualified immunity from liability in connection with the claim. A trial court judge agreed, but he permitted the case to go to a jury trial on the other points raised by the plaintiffs.

Source: WashingtonPost