DOCSLIB.ORG

Predicting Dynamic Risk Factors for Suicide Ideation in Prisoners: Perceived Entrapment and Goal Management in the Context of the IMV Model

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Predicting Dynamic Risk Factors for Suicide Ideation in Prisoners: Perceived Entrapment and Goal Management in the Context of the IMV Model Predicting dynamic risk factors for suicide ideation in prisoners: perceived entrapment and goal management in the context of the IMV Model Rachael Miller DClinPsy Thesis (Volume 1), 2019 University College London 1 UCL Doctorate in Clinical Psychology Thesis declaration form I confirm that the work presented in this thesis is my own. Where information has been derived from other sources, I confirm that this has been indicated in the thesis. Signature: Name: Rachael Miller Date: 21/06/19 2 Overview This thesis focuses on management of suicide and self-harm in prisoners. The literature review (Part 1) is a narrative systematic review of the impact of psychological interventions on suicide and self-harm outcomes applied with offenders in secure correctional facilities. The review highlights the lack of high quality studies in this area and the vast range of different outcome measures used to assess risk of self-harm and suicide. Evaluation of study quality lends itself to a comprehensive discussion of recommendations for future research. The empirical research paper (Part 2) is part of a joint research project (Schombs, unpublished thesis). The research describes a cross-sectional questionnaire based study aiming to further investigate the pathway between feelings of entrapment (internal and external) and suicide ideation suggested by the Integrated Motivational-Volitional model (IMV; O’Connor, 2011), within a prison population. It also aims to further our understanding of mechanisms that may contribute to an individual’s perception of entrapment, specifically goal adjustment and goal perception (e.g. how important a goal is or how ambivalent someone is about setting and achieving goals). Results of this study offer further insight into the relationship between entrapment and suicide, and more specifically, adds to previous findings of differential effects of internal and external entrapment. Discussion expands on the concept of entrapment and the meaning of this for prisoners. Part 3, the Critical Appraisal, discusses the challenges and barriers faced in carrying out research with prison populations and the important factors and considerations highlighted during data collection. Finally, clinical implications of the empirical study are discussed within the context of current UK practices in the management of suicide and self-harm in prisons. 3 Impact Statement Improvement in the area of prisoner safety in terms of suicide and self-harm has wide implications and the impact of this research can be discussed as spanning three different areas. Research This study highlights gaps that future research can address, particularly in improving the quality of psychological intervention studies for self-harm and suicide in prisons, and the need for use of standardised outcome measures. The prison setting introduces challenges that can affect the scientific rigour of studies and suggestions are made for how this can be addressed, for example, through multi-site research, and standardised treatment for control groups. This research also highlights the importance of considering how entrapment is conceptualised and thus measured within a prison setting, given the restrictive context of the setting. Future research may develop a prison-specific measure of entrapment or use qualitative methods to gain a richer understanding of the meaning of entrapment for prison populations. Results support that there is an important role for entrapment and poor social support in relation to suicide ideation in prisoners and therefore this study adds to a growing literature base for this population. Very little research has investigated prisoner goals and goal adjustment, and this study has highlighted the need for greater attention in this area. Clinical This research has shown that psychological interventions in prisons can give some positive results in improving suicide and self-harm outcomes, as well as related psychological factors including depression, anxiety, problem solving deficits and hopelessness. Prison clinicians and/or staff should consider the routine application of 4 Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT) informed interventions, and other therapies, for at-risk prisoners. Further, feelings of entrapment and poor social support are modifiable factors and therefore can be targeted, where indicated, for those at risk of suicide. Measures of entrapment could be administered by reception staff to new arrivals as part of prevention strategies. Support is offered for the current management practices in prisons i.e. the nationally used Assessment, Care in Custody and Teamwork framework (ACCT). There is also some preliminary evidence to support prisoners to identify and engage with new goals and explore their perceptions of their goals. As an institution, a prison can consider environmental factors that promote social support and limit feelings of entrapment. On a wider scale, these ideas could also be incorporated into policies and training. Societal This current research provides insight into the lack of psychological interventions available to prisoners experiencing thoughts of suicide and/or self- harm. Mental health, substance misuse, trauma and other psychological problems have been linked to offence behaviour. Improved knowledge about identifying and treating these issues not only has positive implications for offenders and their families, but also improves the safety of the public. Reductions in suicide and self- harm in prisons would in-turn impact on demands on prison resources and levels of staff burnout, which also has implications for public spending. 5 Contents Overview……………………………………………………………………………..3 Impact statement……………………………………………………………………4 List of Tables………………...………………………………………………………8 List of Figures………………………………………...……………………………..8 Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………….9 Part 1: Literature review ………………………………………………… ………10 Abstract……………………………………………………………………………...11 Introduction……………………………………………………………………......12 Suicide and self-harm……………………………………………………………….12 Secure correctional facilities………………………………………………………..13 Interventions for suicide and self-harm……………………………………………..14 Focus of current review……………………………………………………………..17 Method……………………………………………………………………………...18 Design……………………………………………………………………………….18 Population…………………………………………………………………………...18 Interventions………………………………………………………………………...18 Comparators………………………………………………………………………...18 Study design……………………………………………………………………...…19 Outcomes……………………………………………………………………………19 Additional parameters………………………………………………...…………….19 Search strategy………………………………………………………………………20 Quality assessment…………………………………………………………….........21 Results………………………………………………………………………………21 Database search results……………………………………………………………...21 Data extraction………………………………………………………………………22 Study design…………………………………………………………………...……23 Settings…………………………………………………………………………...…23 Participant characteristics…………………………………………………………...23 Primary outcomes…………………………………………………………………...24 Quality of studies……………………………………………………………………33 Interventions………………………………………………………………………...36 Intervention characteristics………………………………………………………….36 Control groups………………………………………………………………………36 Cognitive Behavioural Therapy…………………………………………………….37 Problem Solving…………………………………………………………………….42 Dialectical Behaviour Therapy……………………………………………………...43 Interpersonal therapies………………………………………………………………45 Combined approaches……………………………………………………………....49 Suicide and self-harm outcomes…………………………………………………….50 Behavioural outcomes……………………………………………………………....51 Psychological outcomes…………………………………………………………….56 Discussion………………………………………………………………………......57 Limitations…………………………………………………………………………..61 Clinical implications………………………………………………………………...62 Future research……………………………………………………………………...64 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………..67 References………………………………………………………………………….68 6 Part 2: Empirical paper ………………………………………………………......85 Abstract……………………………………………………………………………...86 Introduction………………………………………………………………………..88 Risk factors for suicide in prisons………………………………………………......89 Entrapment and suicide…………………………………………………………......91 Goal adjustment, goal perceptions and suicide…………………………………......93 Study aims and hypotheses………………………………………………………….96 Method……………………………………………………………………………...97 Joint research project………………………………………………………………..97 Participants………………………………………………………………………….97 Procedure…………………………………………………………………………..100 Missing data………………………………………………………………………..101 Ethics………..……………………………………………………………………..102 Design……………………………………………………………………………...102 Measures…………………………………………………………………………...102 File information…………………………………………………………………....103 Predictor measures………………………………………………............................106 Outcome measures…………………………………………………………………106 Data analysis……………………………………………………………………….107 Results……………………………………………………………………………..109 Participant demographics………………………………………………………….109 Predicting suicide ideation…………………………………………………………112 Moderation…………………………………………………………………………117 Discussion…………………………………………………………………………118 Entrapment…………………………………………………………………………11 9 Goals……………………………………………………………………………….123 Suicide ideation findings………………………………………………………......124 Strengths and limitations…………………………………………...……………...125 Clinical implication…………………………………………………...…………...127 Future recommendations for research…………………………...………………...128 Conclusions………………………………………………………...……………...130 References…………………………………………………………………………131 Part 3: Critical Appraisal …………………………...…………………………..145 Overview………………………………………………...………………………...146 Personal motivations.………………………………...…………………………....146 Challenges
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Prison Suicide: an Overview and Guide to Prevention National Institute of Corrections
    U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Corrections Prison Suicide: An Overview and Guide to Prevention National Institute of Corrections Morris L. Thigpen, Director Susan M. Hunter, Chief Prisons Division John E. Moore, Project Manager Prison Suicide: An Overview and Guide to Prevention By Lindsay M. Hayes Project Director National Center on Institutions and Alternatives Mansfield, Massachusetts June 1995 This document was prepared under grant number 93P01GHU1 from the National Institute of Corrections, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Copyright © 1995 by the National Center on Institutions and Alternatives The National Institute of Corrections reserves the right to reproduce, publish, translate, or otherwise use, and to authorize others to publish and use all or any part of the copyrighted material contained in this publication. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD .......................................................................................................................................v PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ..................................................................................vi 1. INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW ..............................................................1 2. NATIONAL AND STATE STANDARDS FOR PRISON SUICIDE PREVENTION ...........................................................................................................8
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 HAVE PRISONS LEARNT from COVID-19? HOW the WORLD HAS REACTED to the PANDEMIC BEHIND BARS Edited by Susanna Marietti and Alessio Scandurra
    Date ANTIGONE Have prisons learnt from Covid-19? How t he w orld has react ed t o t he pandem ic Anno XV behind bars N. 1 1 Page 2 ANNO XV - N. 1 ANTIGONE RIVISTA «ANTIGONE» Semestrale di critica del sistema penale e penitenziario Sito: http:/ / www.antigone.it/ rivista/ a cura dell?associazione Antigone onlus SEDE LEGALE E OPERATIVA: via Monti di Pietralata n. 16, 00157 Roma Tel.: 06 4511304; - Fax: 06 62275849 Sito: www.antigone.it; e-mail: [email protected] ANTIGONE EDIZIONI ISSN 2724-5136 DIRETTORE RESPONSABILE: Claudio Sarzotti (Università di Torino) CO-DIRETTORE: Stefano Anastasia (Università di Perugia) COMITATO SCIENTIFICO: Cecilia Blengino (Università di Torino); Giuseppe Campesi (Università di Bari); Amedeo Cottino (Università di Torino); Alessandro De Giorgi (San José State University); Luigi Ferrajoli (Università di Roma Tre); Paolo Ferrua (Università di Torino); Carlo Fiorio (Università di Perugia); Francesco Maisto (Magistrato); Alberto Marcheselli (Università di Torino); Antonio Marchesi (Università di Teramo); Pio Marconi (Università di Roma La Sapienza); Luigi Marini (Magistrato); Dario Melossi (Università di Bologna); Giuseppe Mosconi (Università di Padova); Mauro Palma (PC- CP, Consiglio d?Europa); Livio Pepino (Associazione Studi Giuridici Giuseppe Borrè); Tamar Pitch (Università di Perugia); Ivan Pupolizio (Università di Bari); Franco Prina (Università di Torino); Eligio Resta (Università di Roma Tre); Iñaki Rivera Beiras (Universitat de Barcelona); Marco Ruotolo (Università di Roma Tre); Alvise Sbraccia (Università
    [Show full text]
  • Suicide Research: Selected Readings. Volume 2
    SuicideResearchText-Vol2:SuicideResearchText-Vol2 8/6/10 11:00 AM Page i SUICIDE RESEARCH: SELECTED READINGS Volume 2 May 2009–October 2009 J. Sveticic, K. Andersen, D. De Leo Australian Institute for Suicide Research and Prevention WHO Collaborating Centre for Research and Training in Suicide Prevention National Centre of Excellence in Suicide Prevention SuicideResearchText-Vol2:SuicideResearchText-Vol2 8/6/10 11:00 AM Page ii First published in 2009 Australian Academic Press 32 Jeays Street Bowen Hills Qld 4006 Australia www.australianacademicpress.com.au Reprinted in 2010 Copyright for the Introduction and Comments sections is held by the Australian Institute for Suicide Research and Prevention, 2009. Copyright in all abstracts is retained by the current rights holder. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act, 1968, no part may be reproduced without prior permission from the Australian Institute for Suicide Research and Prevention. ISBN: 978-1-921513-53-4 SuicideResearchText-Vol2:SuicideResearchText-Vol2 8/6/10 11:00 AM Page iii Contents Foreword ................................................................................................vii Acknowledgments ..............................................................................viii Introduction Context ..................................................................................................1 Methodology ........................................................................................2 Key articles Alexopoulos et al, 2009. Reducing suicidal ideation
    [Show full text]
  • National Study of Jail Suicides: Seven Years Later 1988
    NATIONAL STUDY OF JAIL SUICIDES: SEVEN YEARS LATER BY Lindsay M. Hayes National Center on Institutions and Alternatives Joseph R. Rowan Juvenile and criminal Justice International, Inc. Developed by Jail Suicide Prevention Information Task Force: National Center on Institutions and Alternatives, in cooperation with Juvenile and Criminal Justice International, Inc. with assistance from the National Sheriffs’ Association FEBRUARY, 1988 National Center on Institutions and Alternatives l 635 Slates Lane, Suite G-100 l Alexandria, Virginia 22314 l (703) 684-0373 ABSTRACT This report comprises findings from a national study of jail suicides. Reject staff from the National Center on Institutions and Alternatives (NCIA) gathered information from all jails (county and city) and police department lockups throughout the country regarding the incidence of jail suicides during 1985 and 1986. The study resulted in the identification of 854 jail suicides during 1985-86, with 453 occurring in 1985 and 401 in 1986. Project staff analyzed demographic data on 339 of the 1986 suicides. Subsequent comparison with NCIA’s prior national research revealed that, absent minor variations, there were not any appreciable differences in jail suicide characteristics from 1979 and 1986. Most of the key characteristics of jail suicide -offense, intoxication, method/instrument, isolation, and length of incarceration - have remained virtually unchanged over time. The consistency of such findings could impact the ability to deter suicidal behavior. The authors discuss utilization
    [Show full text]
  • Suicide in Correctional Facilities
    Suicide in Correctional Facilities Suicide in Correctional Facilities Albert De Amicis, MPPM University of Phoenix Faculty September 14, 2009 Suicide in a Correctional Facility Table of Contents ABSTRACT........................................................................................................................iii INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………....1 NCIA 1981 SUICIDE VICTIMS PROFILE – Table -1.......................................................3 DEFINE THE PROBLEM………………………………………………………………....8 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES……………………………………………………………..14 ESTABLISH THE EVALUATION CRITERIA……………………………………….....16 EVALUATING ALTERNATIVE POLICIES …………………………………………... 17 Alternative One - Elayn Hunt Correctional Center Suicide Prevention Plan.......... 17 Alternative Two - Jefferson County Corrections: Inmate Watch Program Helps Prevent Suicides..............................................................22 DISTINGUISHING AMONG ALTERNATIVES……………………………………….. 25 Alternative One - Elayn Hunt Correctional Center Suicide Prevention Plan.......... 25 Benefit Cost Analysis Salaries – Table-2....................................28 Alternative Two - Jefferson County Corrections: Inmate Watch Program Helps Prevent Suicides..............................................................30 DISTINGUISHING AMONG ALTERNATIVE POLICIES..............................................31 APPLICATION OF THE SATISFICING METHOD – Table-3.........................................31 MONITORING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF POLICIES ………………………........32 SUMMARY.........................................................................................................................33
    [Show full text]
  • Suicide Watch
    SUICIDE Anyone who cares about kids wants to know: Why are so many young people intent on destroying themselves? And what can schools do to save them? BY REBECCA JONES Reprinted with permission from American School Board Journal Photo: © JFB/Stone © May 2001 by the National School Boards Association n Dec. 1, 2000, a 17-year-old boy set up a video suicide does happen, that’s the worst possible [time] to try to camera in the parking lot of Granada Hills High fly by the seat of your pants.” School just outside Los Angeles. Then he Now is the time, he and other experts say, to identify vul- turned up his car radio and shot himself in the nerable children and protect them from themselves. But how? head. Several federal agencies are collaborating to develop suicide- Dozens, maybe hundreds, of students wit- prevention guidelines for school districts, based on guidelines nessed the shooting. It was the second suicide developed in New Zealand. Work has been slow because the among the school’s 3,700 students in three research in this area isn’t always clear and the experts don’t al- weeks. Another Granada Hills student had ways agree. But researchers, experts, and attorneys agree on weighted herself down and jumped into her family’s the importance of a few principles: swimming pool. OThousands of kids end it all, or try to, every year. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates 5,000 KNOW WHAT YOU’RE DEALING WITH young people kill themselves each year, but suicide experts say A Los Angeles principal calls Richard Lieberman—known as the true toll is probably two or three times higher.
    [Show full text]
  • National Guidelines: Responding to Grief, Trauma, and Distress After a Suicide
    Responding to Grief, Trauma, and Distress After a Suicide: U.S. National Guidelines Survivors of Suicide Loss Task Force April 2015 Blank page Responding to Grief, Trauma, and Distress After a Suicide: U.S. National Guidelines Table of Contents Front Matter Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................................... i Task Force Co-Leads, Members .................................................................................................................. ii Reviewers .................................................................................................................................................... ii Preface ....................................................................................................................................................... iii National Guidelines Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 4 Terminology: “Postvention” and “Loss Survivor” ....................................................................................... 4 Development and Purpose of the Guidelines ............................................................................................. 6 Audience of the Guidelines ........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • National Study of Jail Suicide: 20 Years Later Foreword
    U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Corrections U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Corrections 320 First Street, NW Washington, DC 20534 Morris L. Thigpen Director Thomas J. Beauclair Deputy Director Virginia A. Hutchinson Chief, Jails Division Fran Zandi Program Manager National Institute of Corrections www.nicic.gov Lindsay M. Hayes, Project Director National Center on Institutions and Alternatives April 2010 NIC Accession Number 024308 This document was prepared under cooperative agreement number 06J47GJM0 from the National Institute of Corrections, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Contents Foreword .......................................................................................................... vii Acknowledgments ..............................................................................................ix Executive Summary ............................................................................................xi Chapter 1. Introduction ...................................................................................... 1 Prior Jail Suicide Research .................................................................................... 2 A Word About Suicide Victim Profiles .................................................................... 3 Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2000...............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Suicide Prevention Juvenile Correction Detention Facilities
    ig~aT, g - Performance-Based Standards for Juvenile Correction and Detention Facilities: A Resource Guide Suicide Prevention irg Juvenile Correction and Detention Facilities CA[ councilo,,oveoile Ofl~-eof ;mt,,~Progmm t'S Dep~l~lca I~th'e ~ Correctional Administrators 0 0 Suicide Prevention In Juvenile Correction and Detention Facilities Prepared by: Lindsay M. Hayes Assistant Director National Center on Institutions and Alternatives With assistance from: Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators Edward J. Loughran, Executive Director Kim Godfrey, Assistant Director Tracy Maziarz, Research Assistant Stacy Nasiakos, Research Assistant March 1999 r This document was prepared by the Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators, and was supported by cooperative agreement #98-JB-VX-K003 with the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view or opinions expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, and the Office for Victims of Crime. Table of Contents Io Introduction 1 II. Background: Scope of Problem 3 Prevalence 4 Risk Factors 4 Suicide Contagion in a Juvenile Correctional Facility 5 OJJDP's Conditions of Confinement Report 12 Critical Components of a Suicide Prevention Plan 15 Staff Training 15 Intake Screening/Assessment 16 Communication 18 Housing 19 Levels of Supervision 20 Intervention 20 Reporting 21 Follow-up/Administrative Review 21 IV.
    [Show full text]
  • Suicide Prevention Tier 1, 2 & 3
    Suicide Prevention Tier 1, 2 & 3 Strategy Brief, February, 2016 Shir Palmon, Amber Olson, Elisabeth Kane & Reece Peterson, University of Nebraska-Lincoln uicide is the eighth leading cause of death among all ages in the United States (Mental SHealth America, n.d.). It is the second leading cause of death among youth aged 15-24 (American Association of Suicidology, 2015). Furthermore, suicide is the third leading cause of death for individuals between the ages of 10-19, preceded only by unintentional injury and ho- micide. Those who are 15-19 years old are six times more likely to complete suicide then their younger peers (Cooper, Clements, & Holt, 2011; Heron, 2007), making middle school and high school a crucial time to address suicide in adolescents and young adults. In addition to causing tremendous emotional distress for the friends and family of those who at- tempt or comple suicide, suicide deaths cost the United States 16 billion dollars annually, and nonfa- tal attempts cost 4.7 billion dollars annually. These Tier 1, 2 or 3 numbers are reached by adding direct costs (i.e., treatment, hospital services, funeral, police investiga- Intervention tions), indirect costs (i.e., productivity losses due to disability, years of productive life lost, work losses by family and friends, lost investment in social capital), and intangible/human costs (i.e., pain, grief, and suf- fering; Centre for Suicide Prevention, 2010). What is Suicide and Suicide Prevention? According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2014) webpage, suicide is defined as “death caused by self-directed injurious behavior with any attempt to die as a result of the behavior.” A suicide attempt is defined as “a non-fatal self-directed potentially injurious behavior with any intent to die as a result of the behavior; a suicide attempt may or may not result in injury.” And, suicidal ideation is defined as “thinking about, considering, or planning for suicide” (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2014).
    [Show full text]
  • Suicide Prevention for Juvenile Justice Populations
    Suicide Prevention for Juvenile Justice Populations Recommended Training Content and Resources for Juvenile Justice Staff in Detention, Courts, and Probation November 2018 Prepared by the Illinois Public Health Institute and The Suicide Prevention/Juvenile Justice Curriculum Ad Hoc Committee for the Illinois Department of Public Health Suicide Prevention/Juvenile Justice Curriculum Ad Hoc Committee Members Karen M. Abram, Ph.D. Associate Professor/Associate Director, Health Disparities & Public Policy Program - Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine Jennifer Arreola Volunteer, Middle/High School Outreach Committee – Illinois Chapter of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention Jill Bullock Director - Henry County Court Services Sharon L. Coleman, Psy.D. Associate Director for Forensic Services - Illinois Department of Human Services Paul Fleming Action Alliance for Suicide Prevention Connie Kaiser Superintendent - Juvenile Detention in Champaign County Olivia Johnson, DM St. Clair County Suicide Prevention Alliance, IL State Rep - National Police Suicide Foundation Rebecca Levin Strategic Director, Injury Prevention and Research Center - Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago Stanley A. Lewy President and Founder - Suicide Prevention Association Jennifer Martin Suicide Prevention Project Manager - Illinois Department of Public Health Steve Moore Attorney and Co-Chair of the Illinois Chapter of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention Mark A. Reinecke, Ph.D. Director - Child and Adolescent Mood (CAM) Lab at Northwestern University Warren Sibilla Jr., Ph.D. Assistant Professor - Chicago School of Professional Psychology Jason Steele Field Services Manager - Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts Robert John Zagar, Ph.D. MPH CEO - Dr. Robert John Zagar PC; Consultant - Juvenile Division Circuit Court of Cook County Professor - Chicago School of Professional Psychology; General Manager - Actuarial Risk Tests Page 1 of 69 Table of Contents 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Case 3:14-Cv-00145-KRG Document 19 Filed 06/26/15 Page 1 of 26
    Case 3:14-cv-00145-KRG Document 19 Filed 06/26/15 Page 1 of 26 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA RENEE and DARIAN PALAKOVIC, ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-145 as Administrators of the Estate of ) BRANDON PALAKOVIC, ) JUDGE KIM R. GIBSON ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) JOHN WETZEL, KENNETH CAMERON, ) JAMIE BOYLES, JAMEY LUTHER, ) JAMES HARRINGTON, DR. RATHORE, ) MICHELLE HOUSER, MORRIS ) HOUSER, FRANCIS PIROZZOLA, ) JOHN DOE #1, #2, JOHN DOES #3-6, ) MHM, INC., ) ) Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION I. Introduction This civil rights action arises from the suicide of Brandon Palakovic while he was incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Cresson (“SCI Cresson”) and housed in the prison’s Restricted Housing Unit (“RHU”). Plaintiffs—Palakovic’s parents and the administrators of his estate—have asserted various civil rights claims against Defendants, alleging violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution and the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), as well as state law claims. Presently before the Court are Defendants’ motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 9, 10)1 the complaint pursuant to 1 ECF No. 9 is a motion to dismiss filed by the “Corrections Defendants,” including John Wetzel, Kenneth Cameron, Jamie Boyles, Jamey Luther, James Harrington, Michelle Houser, Morris Houser, and Francis Pirozzola. ECF No. 10 is a motion to dismiss filed by the “Mental Health Defendants,” including Dr. Rathore and MHM, Inc. Case 3:14-cv-00145-KRG Document 19 Filed 06/26/15 Page 2 of 26 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Having reviewed the motions and briefs, along with the applicable law, and for the reasons explained below, the Court will GRANT Defendants’ motions to dismiss.
    [Show full text]