Wang v. Dreisbach
24-2249-pr
| 2d Cir. | Sep 18, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Lishan Wang, proceeding pro se, was a pretrial detainee at Whiting Forensic Hospital subject to a state-court order to restore competency to stand trial for murder.
- Whiting staff placed Wang in four-point restraints and forcibly administered Benadryl to sedate him so that antipsychotic medication ordered by the trial court could be given.
- Wang admitted on the record that he refused prescribed medications, made verbal threats (said staff would have to carry him, that he would protect himself), and declined to assure staff he would not assault anyone if unrestrained.
- Wang sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging excessive force and forcible medication in violation of his constitutional rights.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendant staff, concluding they were entitled to qualified immunity; Wang appealed.
- The Second Circuit affirmed, holding the undisputed facts showed no clearly established law was violated by the restraint and forcible Benadryl administration in these circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether use of four-point restraints and forcible Benadryl constituted excessive force against a pretrial detainee | Wang: restraints and forced medication were unconstitutional excessive force | Defendants: measures were medically appropriate and necessary to reduce danger and effectuate court-ordered treatment | Affirmed: no clearly established law made conduct objectively unreasonable; qualified immunity applies |
| Whether forcible administration of Benadryl violated bodily liberty | Wang: forcible sedation is substantial liberty invasion and unlawful here | Defendants: forcible Benadryl was medically appropriate to facilitate court-ordered antipsychotic treatment given Wang’s behavior | Affirmed: not a substantial departure from accepted practice; qualified immunity protects defendants |
| Whether factual disputes precluded summary judgment | Wang: disputes about necessity and severity of force preclude judgment | Defendants: undisputed key facts (refusal, threats) support immunity as a matter of law | Affirmed: remaining undisputed facts sufficient to resolve qualified immunity question |
| Whether pro se status or unclear briefing waived appellate review | Wang: N/A (argues merits) | Defendants: urged court to decline review for insufficient arguments | Affirmed: Court applied liberal construction for pro se filings and reviewed merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Walker v. Senecal, 130 F.4th 291 (2d Cir. 2025) (summary-judgment and pro se pleading standards)
- Darnell v. Pineiro, 849 F.3d 17 (2d Cir. 2017) (objective-unreasonableness standard for pretrial detainee excessive force)
- Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389 (2015) (standard for force against pretrial detainees)
- United States v. Hardy, 724 F.3d 280 (2d Cir. 2013) (deference to medical judgment and forcible medication principles)
- Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307 (1982) (deference to professional judgment in confinement/treatment decisions)
- Kulak v. City of New York, 88 F.3d 63 (2d Cir. 1996) (qualified immunity and clearly established-law analysis)
- Frost v. N.Y.C. Police Dep’t, 980 F.3d 231 (2d Cir. 2020) (excessive force and qualified immunity context)
- Saleem v. Corp. Transp. Grp., Ltd., 854 F.3d 131 (2d Cir. 2017) (summary-judgment review when some facts disputed)