CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-EIGHTH AMENDMENT-CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT-SOLITARY CONFINEMENT-MENTAL CONDITION

Clark v. Coupe, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 32644 (3^rd Cir. November 28, 2022) (Restrepo, J.) Angelo Clark, a prisoner diagnosed with manic depression and paranoid schizophrenia, brought an as-applied claim alleging his months-long placement in solitary confinement violated his constitutional rights. The District Court dismissed the claim on qualified immunity grounds, finding Clark failed to allege the violation of a clearly established right. We must disagree. Clark alleged prison officials imposed conditions they knew carried a risk of substantial harm and caused him to suffer debilitating pain that served no penological purpose. Because these allegations trigger established Eighth Amendment protection, we will reverse the grant of qualified immunity and remand for further proceedings.  In Palakovic v. Wetzel, we held allegations that solitary confinement was “inhuman for [Palakovic] in light of his mental illness” averred a viable conditions of confinement claim without discussing his access to mental health treatment. 854 F.3d 209, 226 (3d Cir. 2017). Accordingly, we conclude that the jury’s verdict does not preclude our review of Clark’s “per se” solitary confinement claim. In re Medley, 134 U.S. 160, 168, 10 S. Ct. 384, 33 L. Ed. 835 (1890). This Court has long held that allegations of inflicting a serious mental injury are sufficient to state a claim under the Eighth Amendment. White v. Napoleon, 897 F.2d 103, 110-11 (3d Cir. 1990) (allegations that prison doctor’s purposeful infliction of unnecessary emotional harm on inmate patients raises Eighth Amendment cause of action). Further, there was a general consensus among the Courts of Appeals preceding Clark’s stay in the SHU that a threat of serious psychological injury invokes Eighth Amendment protection. See, e.g., Shakka v. Smith, 71 F.3d 162, 166 (4th Cir. 1995) (serious or significant emotional injury resulting from conditions of confinement satisfies Eighth Amendment claim); Thomas v. Farley, 31 F.3d 557, 559 (7th Cir. 1994) (the infliction of mental torture has been the basis for viable cruel and unusual punishment claims in prisoner cases); Jordan v. Gardner, 986 F.2d 1521, 1529 (9th Cir. 1993) (en banc) (severe psychological pain can violate the Eighth Amendment); Scher v. Engelke, 943 F.2d 921, 924 (8th Cir. 1991) (“fear, mental anguish, and misery” can cause sufficient pain to violate the Eighth Amendment). Clark alleged his pre-existing condition of serious mental illness heightened the impact of solitary confinement, rendering it capable of inflicting severe mental trauma. By claiming the prison officials knowingly imposed such conditions, Clark sufficiently alleged the violation of a clearly established right. Accordingly, we will reverse the order of the District Court dismissing this claim and remand for further proceedings.