Jason Perry v. Mary Sims, 990 F.3d 505

Jason Perry, serving a 70-year sentence for a 2013 murder, has a long-documented history of severe mental illness (paranoid schizophrenia, hallucinations, suicide attempts).
In mid‑2016 at Wabash Valley Correctional Facility Perry became more paranoid, refused medications and food, threatened suicide, and accused staff of conspiring against him.
Treating psychiatrists recommended antipsychotics (Geodon, then Haldol); Perry refused Haldol and claimed an allergy (muscle stiffness/locking).
A Medical Treatment Review Committee held an August 11, 2016 hearing, concluded involuntary Haldol was in Perry’s medical interest given danger to self/others and refusal of voluntary treatment, and injections began (with Benadryl and later a reduced dose).
Perry sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference (failure to honor alleged allergy) and Fourteenth Amendment due‑process violations (unfair involuntary medication process); he repeatedly sought appointed counsel, which the district court denied.
The district court granted defendants summary judgment; the Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding no deliberate indifference, the Harper procedural requirements were satisfied, and the denial of counsel was not an abuse of discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Eighth Amendment — deliberate indifference to a serious medical need	Perry: Haldol injections violated Eighth Amendment because he is allergic to Haldol and defendants ignored that risk	Defendants: reactions were known, typical side effects not an allergy; staff monitored, gave Benadryl, reduced dose — no deliberate indifference	Affirmed: no medical evidence of a dangerous allergy; treatment and monitoring show no deliberate indifference
Fourteenth Amendment — procedural due process for involuntary antipsychotics (Harper)	Perry: Review Committee process was biased, failed to consider alternatives, and he lacked full opportunity to present/cross‑examine witnesses	Defendants: committee had adequate medical evidence, was impartial, Perry appeared and argued, and the tribunal reasonably found medication in his medical interest	Affirmed: committee had sufficient evidence of danger and deterioration; Perry had opportunity to be heard; Harper requirements met
Denial of appointed counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1)	Perry: his severe mental illness prevented competent self‑representation and thus entitled him to appointed counsel	Defendants: Perry litigated capably; the district court correctly applied Pruitt factors and reasonably denied counsel	Affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion — Perry demonstrated competence and no reasonable likelihood counsel would change outcome

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (deliberate indifference requires knowledge of and disregard of substantial risk)
Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210 (1990) (prisoners have liberty interest against unwanted antipsychotic drugs; procedural protections required)
Greeno v. Daley, 414 F.3d 645 (7th Cir. 2005) (what constitutes a serious medical need for Eighth Amendment purposes)
Fuller v. Dillon, 236 F.3d 876 (7th Cir. 2001) (Harper‑derived framework for review of forced medication decisions)
Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647 (7th Cir. 2007) (two‑step test for appointment of counsel under § 1915(e)(1))
McPherson v. McBride, 188 F.3d 784 (7th Cir. 1999) (limits on due process claims based on evidence not presented at institutional hearings)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (standard for genuine dispute at summary judgment)
Machicote v. Roethlisberger, 969 F.3d 822 (7th Cir. 2020) (summary judgment review standard)