A three-judge panel from the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia has rejected a claim by a state prison inmate who sued a psychiatrist, a psychiatric nurse and 18 other prison officials for depriving him of his medications and then retaliating against him for filing too many complaints against the prison system.

The panel’s decision, issued last Friday by Judges Cheryl A. Krause, Peter J. Phipps and Anthony Joseph Scirica, concluded that inmate Lavon A. Hill, 42, had failed to show that the medical personnel were “deliberately indifferent” when they discontinued his medications because of his alleged noncompliance in taking them.

The appeals court panel also rejected Hill’s argument that he was placed in a Psychiatric Observation Cell as retaliation for complaining about the lack of treatment for his issues.

For instance, Hill stated that in August 2017, he began a 37-day stint in a psychiatric observation cell.

He described the experience as “going 37 days without showers, shaving, brushing his teeth or combing his hair.”

He said his experiences caused him mental anguish and violated his constitutional right “to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.”

He argued in his 26-page lawsuit that he was denied “due process of law, and the right to be free from prison officials conspiring and creating false records against him.”

Hill contended also that he had been denied treatment under the Americans With Disabilities Act.

The federal appeals court, however, referred to the record of the case that showed Hill’s medications were discontinued and he was housed in a psychiatric observation cell “because of his repeated suicidal ideations.”

Also, the appeals court emphasized, “Hill did not point to evidence in the record demonstrating that his medical treatment was based on anything besides (the psychiatrist’s) professional judgment.”

Hill did not produce facts showing his psychiatric caregivers even knew about the multiple grievances he filed against other employees of the Department of Corrections.

The panel, in ruling on the Hill case, upheld opinions expressed by Magistrate Judge Keith Pesto and U.S. District Judge Stephanie L. Haines, who preside in the U.S. District Court in Johnstown and who conducted the initial review of Hill’s lawsuit.

Pesto in a recommendation issued on March 18 of this year recommended dismissal of Hill’s lawsuit.

His recommendation was accepted by Haines earlier this month.

Pesto conducted the most extensive review of the Hill case.

He noted that Hill became a resident of the state prison system “serving more than a century-long sentence imposed by the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County as a result of a spree of crimes committed in 2003.”

Hill filed his initial lawsuit while an inmate of the State Correctional Institution in Greene County but has since been incarcerated at SCI Houtzdale, SCI Fayette, and at present is in SCI Phoenix (Montgomery County).

More recently, the courts authorized Hill to file an amended complaint against the psychiatrist and the nurse, thereby allowing him to move forward with his case.

Hill, however, decided not to amend the complaint in which he charged that his constitutional rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments had been breached while in the prison system.

He then filed an appeal with the 3rd Circuit in Philadelphia.

The most complete analysis of the Hill case was performed by Pesto.

In his seven-page opinion, Pesto emphasized a charge of improper medical care — as Hill has made against the psychiatrist and the nurse — must include testimony from an expert.

Pesto explained Hill had to produce competent evidence that the medical decisions in his case “departed from acceptable practice in light of (the doctor’s knowledge).”

“Hill makes no effort to do this,” according to the Pesto opinion that was eventually adopted by Haines.

Hill is serving a minimum prison term of 55 years for a home invasion robbery that occurred in the early 2000s.

In 2019, Hill filed his lawsuit, in which he admitted having mental health problems and complained about the medical treatment he was receiving in prison.

His case, while still in its early stages, was rejected by Pesto and Haines, but in 2022, the 3rd Circuit reinstated his complaints that the medical personnel were deliberately indifferent to his mental health condition and his claim that they retaliated against him because of the multiple grievances he was filing against the prison staff.

This time around, however, the appeals court agreed Hill did not offer support for his claims that the medical personnel were indifferent to his condition and that they were part of an effort to retaliate against Hill.