UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-6403
DEREK L. SIMMS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
WILLIAM BAIR, Doctor; STEVEN WILLIAMS, Warden;
CRYSTAL LATERMORE, Nurse; DR. HAFT,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District
Judge. (1:06-cv-02867-WMN)
Submitted: September 26, 2007 Decided: October 9, 2007
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Derek L. Simms, Appellant Pro Se. Dena M. Terra, Francis X. Leary,
WHITEFORD, TAYLOR & PRESTON, Towson, Maryland; Kevin Bock
Karpinski, KARPINSKI, COLARESI & KARP, PA, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Derek L. Simms appeals the district court’s order denying
relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. Simms alleged in
his § 1983 complaint that prison personnel were deliberately
indifferent to his serious medical needs and that he was subjected
to unwanted medical treatment, in violation of the Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendments. Insofar as the district court granted
summary judgment against Simms on his claim of deliberate
indifference, our review of the record discloses no error.
Accordingly, as to this claim, we affirm for the reasons stated by
the district court. See Simms v. Bair, No. 1:06-cv-02867-WMN (D.
Md. filed Mar. 12, 2007 & entered Mar. 13, 2007).
However, the court failed to address Simms’s Fourteenth
Amendment claim in which he alleged that he was subjected to
medical treatment without his consent. “The right to be free of
unwanted physical invasions has been recognized as an integral part
of the individual’s constitutional freedoms . . . .” United States
v. Charters, 829 F.2d 479, 491 (4th Cir. 1987), vacated on other
grounds, 863 F.2d 302 (4th Cir. 1988). Moreover, “[t]he right to
refuse medical treatment has been specifically recognized as a
subject of constitutional protection,” id., that survives criminal
conviction and incarceration, cf. Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307,
316 (1982) (recognizing liberty from bodily restraint, as protected
by the Due Process Clause from arbitrary governmental action,
- 2 -
survives criminal conviction and incarceration). Thus, “[i]f an
individual is competent to make medical decisions, the individual’s
informed decision presumptively is the best decision for that
individual . . . .” Charters, 829 F.2d at 494-95; see also
Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 221-22 (1990) (recognizing an
individual’s “significant liberty interest in avoiding the unwanted
administration” of a specific form of medical treatment).
Nevertheless, forced medical treatment may be necessary
to secure the health and safety of the affected individual, other
inmates, and prison personnel. See Washington, 494 U.S. at 227;
see also Charters, 829 F.2d at 499. “The procedural protections
required by the Due Process Clause must be determined with
reference to the rights and interests at stake in the particular
case.” Washington, 494 U.S. at 229. Factors that should be
considered in determining the procedural requirements due under the
Fourteenth Amendment are: (1) the private interests involved; (2)
the governmental interests involved; and (3) the value of
procedural requirements. Id.
Neither Simms nor Dr. Bair has produced evidence, other
than their own statements, to establish whether the treatment was
refused. Though Simms’s Inmate Request Form indicated a desire to
be examined by medical staff, this is not dispositive of the issue
in dispute. Additionally, the record is silent regarding whether
the challenged procedure, if performed without Simms’s consent, was
- 3 -
medically necessary to protect the health and safety of Simms,
other inmates, and prison personnel. Therefore, because there are
material issues of fact in dispute, we vacate and remand to the
district court for consideration of this issue.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART,
VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED
- 4 -