*1 him, the record are unassailable on not hire Dr. Turco did concluding that basis for before us. good faith. conclusion reach his judgment is affirmed. Accordingly, views, more subsequent to the
As Dr. expressed by plaintiff, to the favorable cast no doubt
Weisner, can opinions these earlier of Dr. Turco’s genuineness
on the thing, some For one
conclusion. re-hire decision not to passed between SINGLETON, Laverne Charles subsequent opinions and the plaintiff Appellant, treating psychiatrist. by his expressed another, be disagreement a mere For Director, Dr. Larry NORRIS, Turco and Weisner Dr. Arkansas tween Correction, im Department the Postal Service not show Appellee. in 1998 it acted motivated. When properly plaintiff back not to take and decided 00-1492. No. force, had before it the into the work Appeals, United States Court termi who had been plaintiff record of Eighth Circuit. threatening cause on the basis nated for behavior, had re physician whom a March Submitted: to service. Of unfit to return cently found 12, 2001. Filed: Oct. an duty to accommodate there is a course Granted; Opinion and Rehearing En Banc if can accom reasonably employee Dec. Judgment Vacated: undue without employer plished Here, however, the accommoda hardship. are, to by Dr. Weisner
tions suggested (stable life), beyond the home
some extent and, in other re employer,
power of of law. as a matter
spects, unreasonable asserts, without contra
The Postal Service to Ore
diction, transfer Mr. Leiss that to would violate collective- point at this
gon agreement.
bargaining persis- for his Mr. Leiss
We commend 'work and wanting to return to
tence in what do not We know
seeking treatment. a course of Perhaps
the future will hold. favorable produce will treatment
intensive Service the Postal opinions
medical present, convincing. For
will find
however, say that obliged we are plain- that the conclusions
Postal Service’s time to return to at this
tiff is able
work, legitimate nondis- that there are not to re- deciding
criminatory reasons for
860
female,
aggravated robbery.
and of
He
was sentenced to death for the murder and
imprisonment
to life
robbery.
for the
Sin
gleton’s
capital
conviction and sentence for
felony
murder were affirmed
the Ar
1981,
Supreme
kansas
Court November
aggravated robbery
conviction and
jeopardy
sentence were vacated on double
State,
grounds. Singleton v.
274 Ark.
(1981).
623
180
S.W.2d
unsuc
cessfully sought post-conviction
un
relief
der Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure
Supreme
and the United States
Court
Arkansas,
denied certiorari.
v.
882, 103
459 U.S.
S.Ct.
niary gain. Lockhart, Citing Collins v. 754 (8th Cir.1985), F.2d 258 the court held that I. BACKGROUND pecuniary gain aggravating was not valid History A. Procedural From 1979-2000 factor because was also an element of Singleton, male, a black convicted the robbery-murder charge. The district Arkansas state court in capital conviction, 1979 of the court prohibited sustained the York, felony Mary murder of Lou a white the State from retrying penalty phase
861
trial,
the Arkansas death
phase of
case,
required
We
statute was unconstitutional.
pa
penalty
without
to life
his sentence
to reduce
court’s denial of Sin
Lockhart,
the district
F.Supp.
affirmed
653
role.
Lockhart,
Singleton v.
(E.D.Ark.1986).
gleton’s petition.
1114, 1144
(8th
denied,
Cir.),
cert.
962 F.2d
*3
appealed
the State
and
Singleton
Both
435,
964,
eral habeas procedural objections See v. may Endell, 133, Ark. 316 870 742 raise to such a S.W.2d claim. denied, (1994), cert. 513 U.S. 115 Norris, (8th 108 F.3d (1994).
S.Ct.
Singleton makes no claim that he is cation. psychosis stay did not currently incompetent to be executed. however, remission for long, by Accordingly, the district ruling court’s year, October of that Singleton was again on that unchallenged stands and is thus delusional and experiencing visual and au- affirmed. Our ruling on this ditory issue does Oglesby hallucinations. ordered not foreclose Singleton from raising medicated, a Singleton involuntarily which future claim of incompetence upon based continued until when Oglesby June conditions different from those that led discontinued the medication “to see how to the district ruling pres- court’s in the long [Singleton] go could without having case, subject, course, ent (Mrad to whatever any further symptoms.” mental Singleton cation, diagnosed paranoid as but the does record not reflect the schizophrenic anxiety early with August length as antipsy- time he remained on the placed 1983. He antipsychotic on drugs. medi- chotic the time. only he took half 7.) five records indicate 8/14/00, at Within Report two Singleton evaluated Oglesby and When delusional months, later, Singleton was determined months clothes, loudly, talking off his stripping taking the medication. Notwithstand- using “sub- staff of prison accusing the fact, him on (Id.) place did not Oglesby ing this him. Once on suggestions” liminal regime because involuntary medication an on placed Singleton again, a delusional or appear did not regime. involuntary medication or others. danger to himself involuntarily continued The State opin- July Oglesby’s end of By the November 1991 medicate prison told Nevertheless, changed. and ion June March 1995. from God he was on a mission doctor that seeing complained July President, kill and the Oglesby cigarettes worms and turn into his food court and the United States bones, to be castrated and asked into turn doctor also him free. The had set was to Court response religious reasons. to take his refused reported Singleton antipsychotic increase to dis- continued longer medication. no July, he was the end of expressed eccentric behavior play experiencing hallucinations. *5 had been set he was God and belief that federal Singleton’s to response be- August Oglesby early in free agreement the and with petition habeas and recom- was Singleton lieved court entered the district parties, Re- Medication prison’s that the mended to Singleton be sent directing that order so the State Singleton view Panel evaluate (FMC) in Medical Center the Federal him. could medicate February and in Springfield, Missouri eccentric to Singleton display he was continued whether determine March 1995 to behavior, he was so, he believed and, indicating if be executed competent to August On Court. if God and his competent remain he whether Single- that reported prison doctor The FMC’s discontinued. was medication stuffed his Mrad, shredded mattress ton had con- Dr. David psychiatrist, clinical vents; toilet, sink, Single- and air that it in the He concluded ducted evaluation. August eating. On was also exe- ton competent to be was Ford Singleton possi- was Singleton opined Oglesby cuted, discontinued if the State and that danger himself a to medication, bly suicidal and remain “might he August security prison. of the On time without period of for some cell. his Singleton flooded psychotic.” becoming medication before 8.) (Mrad 8/14/00, could at Mrad Report a held Review Panel The Medication however, exactly when not, determine hearing, At the hearing August on would be. did not panel Singleton told that he to take medication and want in March prison to
Singleton returned in the taking his medication to voluntary medi- consented on a placed 1995 and was prison. fight with only to a avoid past when September until regime cation sen- that his panel told the also A asked to discontinue overturned, the tence had been By April agreed. psychiatrist prison there illegally, and holding him however, withdrawn Singleton had become him. After to execute conspiracy weight. was had lost and unintelligible de- history and considering Singleton’s psychotic, believing Oglesby, loss and meanor, weight as his as well which prescribed again eat, panel refusal to concluded that file a successive writ corpus of habeas with [Singleton’s] during court; “some of behavior both were denied. Shortly suggested] interview he could represent thereafter, petition pursu- filed a danger ongoing to others” and that “[h]is § ant to 28 U.S.C. 2241 arguing that Ford weight reported loss and refusal to eat prevented the State from involuntarily pose[d] could a threat [have] to his well him medicating competency achieve his 63.) being.” (Appellant’s App. at executing and then him for his crimes. panel unanimously agreed involuntarily The district court disagreed and denied his Singleton. medicate petition, stating: Mr. presently being involun- Oglesby immediately placed Singleton tarily in medicated accordance with the involuntary regime. on an medication For procedural substantive require- the next two months remained ments of the law. As this Court said delusional and continued to believe his sen- 1995, it does not have authority to order overturned; however, tence had been Mr. medically off of his pre- more, improved, eating mood he was drugs. scribed To do so would be con- he was not hostile or aggressive. Ogles- trary to his medical best interests. And by’s November and December 1997 evalua- the Court concludes that under the law tions indicate that psychosis there is no need to order the defendant except period remission for a stop medicating Why? him. Because early December Singleton experi- when only the current law prohibits medicat- enced visual hallucinations. ing an incompetent death row inmate court, On the scant record before this when the sole purpose is to make appears involuntary that under *6 competent so that the State can execute Singleton’s slowly mental condition im- him.... There’s no evidence this rec- proved over the next thirteen Al- months. ord that the actions decisions of the though Singleton problems had sleeping personnel medical any involved were in nervous, and was restless and he did not degree desire, by motivated the purpose a psychotic have episode until February or intent to Singleton make Mr. compe- 1999, prison when the reported staff tent so that he could be executed. was withdrawn and exaggerated had an (Tr. 94-95.) Hr’g, at 2/16/00 speech pattern. Singleton’s medication increased, reported but he hearing With the district permission, court’s Sin- aggressive voices and was toward the staff gleton appealed to this court and we in April Oglesby gave Singleton ad- stayed his execution. appeal, On Singleton ditional by 1999, August reargued the merits of petition, but the he believed Singleton’s psychosis was in State refused to concede Singleton remission. would become incompetent Ford if he did not receive his medication. We deter- Litigation C. Current mined that underlying parties’ argu- appears It Singleton’s psychosis re- ments were questions two unanswered mained in First, remission into January 2000. fact. Singleton Ford competent month, Sometime during at the time the began State to medicate scheduled Singleton’s Second, execution for March him? assuming medication ren- 10, 2000, February On Singleton Singleton dered competent, Ford if the pro filed a se motion for the appointment stopped State involuntarily medicating petition of counsel and a permission him, to Singleton regress psycho- into an evalu- to the FMC for Singleton turned to be executed incompetent and become sis questions to answer the designed ation fully had of his medication the effects once of remand. by our order posed we questions, these resolve dissipated? To court. to the district case remanded the the FMC at Singleton remained was evalu- 2000 and August 29 to June respond court could the district Before that he Singleton told Mrad ated Mrad. remand, in March order of to our early ages as hallucinations experienced comb that counsel informed told him His mother and fourteen. twelve just discovered had but instead psychiatrist, to he needed see medicat- involuntarily longer was no to feel drugs alcohol Singleton used 2000, a January Apparently ing him. that he also told Mrad better. to re- not had decided psychiatrist prison could telling him he in 1978 heard voices Review to the Medication turn and sister Ms brother resurrect deceased medication involuntary Panel for another family” and that with the if he had “incest allowing order, recommended instead just days voice before he heard a voluntari- his medication to take going go telling he was murder However, nor psychiatrist neither ly. 4.) 8/14/00, (Mrad Report prison.4 of this informed panel that Sin- Sin- parties stipulated question change. Turning to the whether Au- prior Jan- his medication gleton had received was Ford gleton but that reported March February, Mrad uary, gust indicated April from that time to take his medical records he had refused for eleven was no medication once he learned he had received symp- did, months, displaying psychotic howev- it. He to take required longer and his toms, he was God Never- and believed injection. er, May 2000 receive his by the Su- been overturned court to theless, the district conviction we directed this, con- Mrad Based on Court. preme With order of remand. with our comply cluded: consent, court re- the district parties’ examining opinion history in a It further Singleton's medical 4. We detailed has the Mr. psychiatrist opinion: previous pro- capacity to understand *7 mental trial, request- [Singleton's counsel] Prior to has the aginist and ceedings [sic] him given psychiatric a ed that effectively in his capacity to assist mental Singleton was Accordingly, examination. and, defense; probably he was own Hospital, where Arkansas State to the sent or de- suffering from mental not disease battery of tests a was he administered un- degree as to make fect of such psy- a by psychologist and a was examined criminality of his appreciate able tests and results of the The chiatrist. his conduct to conform conduct or Singleton has a revealed that examination of the law. requirments [sic] IQ 83, places him within which full scale report showed examining psychiatrist's The range func- "1) of intellectual dull tire normal Without diagnosis to be: reading 3) at appeared to be tioning. Drinking 2) He Habitual Excessive psychosis grade level.... nearly Personality, a seventh Severe.” Antisocial Lockhart, report con- examining psychiatrist’s F.2d at 1318. 962 Singleton v. June in its observed that: court cluded The district examining psychi- Singleton's medical opinion opinion of the that "Mr. It is 1995 suggested] testimony Singleton is not histoiy own Charles Lavern his atrist that problems, legal may irre- had mental degree of mentally Lhe that he have ill to early age episodes, as psychotic examina- even sponsibility at the Norris, No. PB-C-93- time of twelve.” 425, at the probably was tion and not 2, 1995). (E.D. Ark. slip op. at 8 June alleged offense. the commission criteria, According prison- to the Ford would be considered to currently meet punishment er must be aware of the the Ford criteria. presenta- Unlike his (execution) they are about to receive tion in Mr. Singleton’s thinking is the reason for it. Prior to his involun- much more disorganized, and pre- he is tary in August ap- occupied with religious Al- themes. pears acutely Mr. psy- though some of his may simply ideas chotic and believed God. Given reflect traditional religious beliefs about belief, unlikely it is he is capable of an reincarnation, or afterlife ap- he also frequently appreciating that he could be pears to be displaying thoughts of a specifically, executed. Even more Mr. much more pathological nature. He be- frequently expressed had parallel lieves universe. He has his sentence been overturned belief repeatedly unusual expressed ideas and he had free by been set the Su- death, about referring to it as simply Court. He preme expressed further stopping breathing being and then that he was being belief held as a result (a brought back power somewhere else a conspiracy spite of that court he seemed to judges). attribute to He If mandate. Mr. truly be- has repeatedly referred to himself as ideas, lieved those delusional which is Holy Spirit. expressed He has likely given state at the some bizarre ideas about the purpose of time, then it appear does (the the death of Mary Lou York victim have been able to appreciate the reason of the crime for which he has been sen- for his being at that executed time. tenced). Although the court has not information, Based on the above it my specifically requested opinion con- opinion in August prior to the cerning Mr. present compe- imposition of involuntary tency executed, to be it appears this Mr. was not to be issue must be addressed in the context executed under the Ford v. Waimvright question of the of whether he would criteria that he was unable to appreci- become incompetent without medi- ate he was going to be executed and cation. appreciate unable to the reason for the execution, believing that he was no long- 15-16.) at reported {Id. Mrad that Single- being er held for robbery-murder ton was also difficult to follow and de- Mary York, Lou but as the result of a scribed himself as being a marionette and conspiracy to execute him. God moving strings. He believed (Mrad 8/14/00, 14-15.) Report of that he and St. were John tasked with homosexuals, fighting Sylvester responding to the second question *8 Stallone and Arnold posed by remand, our Schwartzenegger order of Mrad stat- were ed: somewhere between this universe and another universe and were to trying question The of whether Mr. Singleton addition, save him. Singleton told would become incompetent to be exe- Mrad he was cuted if not concerned with his death medication were to be dis- because death nothing, continued assumes the was and that premise that Mr. dur- ing (which Singleton 1997 presently attempt is suicide competent. no one witnessed), Based on the presentation he clinical cut his jugular three has displayed during the current evalu- times but it spontaneously stopped bleed- ation, I am {Id.) uncertain that Mr. Singleton ing.
867
II. Discussion
medi-
Singleton’s
that while
stated
Mrad
psy-
become
he would
history indicated
cal
outset,
that the
At
we note
State
medication, he
Ms
not take
if he did
chotic
controversy is
that
Arkansas believes
this
elapse
time would
much
how
uncertain
currently taking
Singleton
is
moot because
in-
believes,
or
psychotic
became
Singleton
It'
voluntarily.
before
his medication
executed,
nor would
however,
petition should
Singleton’s
to be
that
competent
be-
and resolved
pass
would
on
merits
much time
be considered
how
speculate
an
to
dissipat-
exception
for all in
light
once and
of the medication
the effects
fore
doctrine,
it be-
exception
the mootness
Singleton’s
system.
Singleton’s
ed from
high-
it is
because
in this case
lieves exists
that on one
reflected
occa-
medical records
not continue
Singleton
that
will
ly probable
four
within
psychotic
he became
sion
See
voluntarily.
medication
to
his
take
medication,
his
discontinuing
months
Hunt,
102
Murphy v.
455 U.S.
psychotic
he became
another
while on
(1982).
(per
353
71 L.Ed.2d
S.Ct.
discontinuing his
months of
within five
curiam)
moot if there
(holding
is not
case
rec-
1997 medical
or “demon-
expectation”
is “reasonable
his
not received
that he had
indicated
ords
controversy
probability” that same
strated
before
for eleven months
future) (quoting
point
at some
will arise
him,
involuntarily medicate
began to
State
147, 149,
Bradford, 423 U.S.
Weinstein
display psychotic
to
begun
he had
(1975)
(per
110 S.Ct.
across this Nation. Faced with such The Court acknowledged that widespread evidence of a injection restriction forcible of medication into a non- *10 for execution. competent him to render a sub- body represents consenting person’s cases, to expected lib- the can be person’s State with that such interference stantial unique inmate to medicating the the given state’s that it is claim erty, but held sub- security, safety and and oth- prison harming in him himself interest from protect mentally ill a permits certainly process ers, due will prisoner stantive and the almost an- involuntarily with be treated inmate to are a reasons proffered the argue State’s is a determi- where there drugs tipsychotic him to be rendering pretext for to dangerous is “the inmate nation that reach this parties the Once executed. in treatment is and the others himself or process whether it is unclear due point, Riggins interest.” inmate’s medical the hearing a to inmate to would entitle the Nevada, 112 S.Ct. 504 U.S. for proffered reasons challenge the State’s (1992) inter- (quoting and L.Ed.2d 479 him, so, if an ad- and whether medicating “[uj'nder Therefore, Harper). preting over- judicial tribunal will or ministrative a drugs on antipsychotic Hamper, forcing By process the time this hearing. the see absent impermissible is prisoner convicted out, may have be- the inmate works itself a justification and overriding finding a executed, the incompetent to be come appropriateness.” of medical determination again. will have to start process entire Id. accept we of whether Regardless instructive, case an neither While we do believe position, State’s can a state question of whether swers the medicating Singleton is intent State’s incom an otherwise involuntarily medicate this case. outcome of dispositive to the from harm him protect to petent prisoner 1987, the unique. Since facts here are The and then execute others ing himself or anti- Singleton with has medicated State medication renders if prisoner Singleton has While medication. psychotic the dis The competent. State Ford taking medi- to occasionally consented intent the State’s trict court believe cation, majority of spent has a the State control Singleton should medicating his Singleton against medicating unconsti it would be They concede case. however, always State, has not will. involuntarily medi to for the State tutional himto Singleton’s medication administered express purpose cate numerous have been consistently. There executed, be competent to rendering him when years eighteen last over the times it is unconstitution they do not believe in- has the State discontinued Singleton if to execute al for regime permitted or voluntary through the competency achieved his has taking his medication .stop to to administered involuntary medication history is clear himself or harming though from his medical even protect psychotic without he will become others. periods these During —and Harper’s whether question Although we slips many Singleton have been there case, prob- — in this applies framework psy- to competence lucidity Ford constitutionality of pinning lem with it is incompetence, Ford chosis intent to the State’s prisoner’s execution compe- he is when Ford to assess difficult will him is that it medicating involuntarily At incompetent. Ford when he is tent and whether to determine often difficult Mrad deposition, post-examination protect medicating prisoner is State whether opinion give asked or or others harming himself him from if re- become Singleton would inmate medicating the whether *11 respond- moved from his medication. He once he begins taking In medication. ed: short, way there is no for us to know ' opinion I do have an that based on his whether Singleton will be on
past history years of several now Mr. the day he is executed. This fact is made psychotic if we become all the troubling given more the State’s [sic] were off medication. It’s much inconsistent administration of medication try accurately pre- more difficult to and its argument admission at oral exactly dict when that would be. Look- ninety days elapse will between the time ing record through his there was one an execution date is set and the date of period when he became—the records re- execution. flect noticeably psychotic that he was greater Of even concern to Single- us is foui' months after medication was dis- inability lucidity ton's to retain and Ford continued. There was another time competency even while he is medicated. when it was five months. In partic- The record reflects that at point one Sin- instance, ular episode, the ’97 it was gleton complained of visual hallucinations actually actually off medication —he requested castration even though he months, for about 11 but there was evi- consistently had been medicated for in twen- dence his record that he was first months; another, ty on showing changes in his mood and later experienced shoving psychotic symptoms by April hallucinations psychotic exhibited ’97, which would have been 7 months symptoms being after on medication for discontinued, after the medication was addition, seventeen months. predict, so it’s difficult to and in addition experienced hallucinations while on medi- to that there were [sic] at least one Oglesby cation even when reported that episode in his record —I in believe ’93— psychosis in psy- remission. The when the records reflect he psy- became symptoms chotic Singleton exhibited dur- chotic even while he taking ing episodes these are similar to the symp- toms exhibited when Mrad classified And so that issue of the relationship him as incompetent Ford in August 1997 medication, between competency and his and lead us to seriously doubt whether particularly trying predict when he Singleton can be competent to be executed only would not become even while he is on his medication. specifically more when he would become summarize, To we know that incompetent under the Ford criteria off was Ford incompetent in and we fairly is I difficult. don’t know that he has been Ford incompetent know that I anyone or accurately could much of the time that he has been that, confined predict but it’s not predict hard to prison. in This is not a past experience simple based on that if case he’s off medication for an which an period extended inmate has been administered again psychotic. he will antipsychotic medication that has resulted (Mrad in his 10/24/00, 27-28.) reachieving Depo. competency and main- taining that status over a long period of
Thus, if even we assume is circumstance, time. In that it could be Ford competent while on his medication— said, consistent with the Court an assumption we hesitate to make—it Ford, decision appears that there inmate was way is no of knowing aware of long punishment how he will remain he was competent once about to the medication is suffer long why discontinued or how he was about to suffer it. it will take him to regain However, Ford competency that cannot be said in this case. case to it March when we remanded the drawn to be one conclusion only There *12 is whether is cur- of which record, is and that reading this entire from failed Ford-competent. Having to rently under- have the does not that court, question that to the district we pose to the State necessary permit to standing now answer it ourselves. bring time to It is therefore him. execute permanent a and grant to an end this case acknowledge I that Court’s answer under otherwise To do of execution. stay brings for it to appeal, has a certain would, in case of this circumstances might what seem to be end- conclusion Marshall, subject Sin- of Justice the words hearings made competency of less round exacting mind- barbarity of “the gleton to delay between necessary by inevitable Ford, at 477 U.S. vengeance.” less and a finding competency post-hearing Had 106 S.Ct. set date. we subsequently execution to answer the the district court asked course, may continue to the State Of ourselves, the we now answer question voluntarily or involun- medicate may very well have outcome of this case him and necessary protect to tarily as any I am to see Loath as been the same. him in the others, may it not execute case, tempting and as delay further future. that concluding join it is to Court end, I bring to the case to an do it is time III. CONCLUSION within our properly that it is not believe court and direct reverse district We to do so. province for a writ of petition grant Singleton’s it to I read the thought. further As One permanent enter a corpus and to habeas purport it does not opinion, Court’s court shall The district execution. stay of question constitutional the difficult answer life im- Singleton’s sentence also reduce who may execute someone whether a state pa- possibility without the prisonment as a result of the Ford-competent only is role. psychotropic administration forcible Weston, drugs. United States Cf. WOLLMAN, dissenting. Judge, Chief (D.C.Cir.2001), petition cert. F.3d 873 in thor- out opinion spells The Court’s 01-6161). 2001) (No. (Sept. filed history lengthy procedural ough detail care- to the respect all due Court’s With why the reasons explains of this case history long- of this analysis ful on death row Singleton has that been case, join in the conclu- I drawn-out cannot twenty-two month short of now for one as I dislike the it reaches. Much sion years. that delay, I believe even more prospect of Singleton has dispute can one that No a more defini- secure attempt to we should confused, think- delusional had a record that we should to the question tive answer nearly during and bizarre behavior ing ques- that If the answer to asked. have has wended case quarter-century definitive can be no there tion is judicial the state and federal through itself have failed to answer, will then need to marked the State’s systems, Wainwright burden. Ford v. satisfy its involuntarily medicate time to ap- delay might as further Unattractive well-being. safety and his own him for further be, I do believe pear to enable might aside, proceedings us what is issue before That constitutionally permissible in a impose that we question answer to is the now judicial its punishment manner the address court to to ask the district failed system appropriate has deemed to be the Mary York’s
sanction for senseless death constitute the exaction of mindless I
vengeance. Accordingly, respectfully
dissent. *13 America,
UNITED STATES Appellee,
Plaintiff - SERA, Appellant.
Pedro Defendant -
No. 00-3415.
United States Court of Appeals,
Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: June Sept.
Filed: