Jim Dey: Prison mental health care case on its death bed

Oct. 29—Sixteen years is a long time to work on a lawsuit that ultimately went nowhere.

But that's the result of litigation in federal court concerning the quality of mental health care state prison officials provide troubled inmates.

U.S. District Judge Michael Mihm of Peoria recently indicated he will dismiss the lawsuit because he lacks the required jurisdiction to hear any further claims.

Veteran journalist Edith Brady-Lunny, who has covered the litigation extensively, reported that Mihm made his intentions known during a recent telephone conference with lawyers representing the inmates as well as the state.

The apparent end of the litigation stands in stark contrast with previous rulings in the case. They raised the question of "how much is enough" in terms of the state's efforts to meet its legal obligation to provide mental health care for the men and women it holds in custody.

That was hardly the only question the lawsuit raised.

Here's the biggest: Can the state be blamed when, despite its best efforts, it's unable to hire enough mental health care providers to treat inmates who need care?

Mihm, a veteran jurist, answered the latter question in the affirmative when he issued a 2018 order finding state prison officials were "deliberately indifferent" to inmates' mental-health concerns.

Those two words are explosive in the legal sense, defined as "approaching a total unconcern for the prisoners' welfare in the face of serious risks."

That's quite an indictment, one a federal appeals court in Chicago said did not square with the evidence. The appellate court said corrections officials clearly fell short in their efforts, but that they "made reasonable efforts to cure the deficiencies" in prison mental health care.

The lawsuit filed by a one-time inmate, Ashoor Rasho, charged that mental-health issues do not just develop in inmates, but are inflicted upon them. It said the Department of Corrections "punishes prisoners with mental illness, rather than properly treating them."

While portrayed by Mihm as displaying virtually no concern, corrections officials negotiated a settlement with inmate lawyers.

In what's known as a consent decree, the state agreed in 2016 to make improvements over a specific time period in five key areas — staff, crisis care, segregation, medication and evaluation/treatment plans — and do so under the scrutiny of an outside court-appointed monitor.

The monitor later testified the department's compliance was "grossly insufficient" and "extremely poor" in quality. Mihm followed that up with his 2018 finding of "deliberate indifference."

The judge said "mentally ill inmates continue to suffer as they wait for the IDOC to do what it said it was going to do."

What did the state do? Witnesses acknowledged "IDOC had clearly made progress" in revamping its mental health care system.

It "spent $45 million on new residential treatment facilities, $75 million to develop a new data system for intake, $150 million to construct a new inpatient facility, delivered mental-health training to its entire staff and hired administrative personnel to coordinate inmate care."

Taxpayer money prison officials could — and did — spend. But they filled less than half of 65 allotted psychiatrist positions because the much-needed psychiatrists didn't want to work with prison inmates.

The department has the same problem hiring medical doctors and nurses to work in state prisons.

While Mihm essentially found prison officials wouldn't comply, the appeals court said it tried, but couldn't comply.

What's next, if anything? While Mihm said the appeals court's ruling leaves him no choice but to dismiss the case, inmate lawyers vow to press on.

But how and where?

One thing is for sure — medical and mental health care in Illinois prisons is, for a variety of reasons, substandard. This case indicates some problems are beyond even judicial power to solve.