Hussey v. Giannone

Background

Yessuh Suhyes Hussey, who was detained at the time of the order, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against John Giannone, identified as a doctor at Kirby Forensic Psychiatric Center, and Kirby staff members Kizer and Lora. The court had granted Hussey permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees, and it screened the complaint as required for a detained person proceeding without a lawyer.

Hussey alleged that on several dates in 2022 he was wrongfully drugged and overdosed even though he was sane, well behaved, and productive. He alleged that Dr. Giannone ordered three injections that caused heartburn, headaches, and loss of consciousness. Hussey attributed the medication to racial profiling, defamation, and lies by staff and another doctor. He also alleged that Lora sexually harassed him and that Kizer unlawfully restrained and physically attacked him. Separately, he alleged that he received a $165 bill for mandatory COVID-19 testing and blood work. He sought money damages.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that a claim under Section 1983 requires facts showing both a violation of a constitutional or federal right and action by a person acting under state authority.

Forced medication. The court treated Hussey’s allegations about being wrongfully drugged as a claim that he was forcibly medicated in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. A person has a significant liberty interest in avoiding unwanted antipsychotic medication, but that interest may be overridden in limited circumstances, including an emergency or medication authorized under applicable procedures. The court also stated that a doctor is not liable for treatment decisions unless the decisions substantially depart from accepted medical judgment, practice, or standards.

The court found that Hussey did not allege enough facts to state this claim. He did not identify why he was at Kirby, what happened before the medication was given, what medication he received, whether he refused it, whether a court authorized it, or whether an emergency existed. His statements that he was sane, well behaved, and productive were not supported by specific facts. He also did not explain how racial profiling caused the medication or why his intelligence and maturity were relevant to the decision. The court therefore dismissed the forced-medication claims for failure to state a claim.

Claims against Lora and Kizer. Hussey provided no factual details about the alleged sexual harassment, restraint, or physical attack. The court concluded that the allegations did not plausibly show that either defendant violated a federally protected right and dismissed these claims for failure to state a claim.

State-law claims. After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims Hussey might be asserting. Supplemental jurisdiction is the court’s authority to hear related state-law claims alongside federal claims.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim under the prisoner-screening statute. It granted Hussey 60 days to file an amended complaint providing factual details about each claim and defendant. The amended complaint must replace the original complaint rather than merely add to it. The court stated that if Hussey did not timely amend and could not show good cause, the Clerk would be directed to enter judgment consistent with the order. No summons would issue at that time.

The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal.