Adrian King, an inmate in a West Virginia prison, was allegedly subjected to a months long campaign of harassment, threats and isolation by prison officials until he submitted to involuntary and medically unnecessary surgery on his penis. The surgery, King claims, scarred his genitals, left him with tingling and numbness, causes his penis to hurt during rain, snow or cold weather, and led to a “’stabbing pain [that] shoots into [his] stomach’ if he bumps into something or the scar on his penis is touched.” Among other things, he fears that he may not be able to have a normal sex life again.
And yet, a federal trial court held that King could not sue the prison officials who allegedly did this to him. Last week, a federal appeals court disagreed, reinstating his suit against those officials.
Before explaining the details of King’s case, it’s worth noting the method the prison allegedly used to coerce him into an unwanted operation on his own genitals. King alleges that he was placed in “administrative segregation,” a common term prisons use for when they isolate inmates from nearly all human contact for days, weeks or even months at a time. Though the research on individuals subjected to such treatment is sparse — researchers don’t typically have access to inmates held in solitary confinement — the research that does exist suggests that such confinement can work profound physical changes on the human brain. Indeed, according to University of Michigan neuroscientist Huda Akil, parts of the brain can “actually shrink.”
Solitary Confinement May Dramatically Alter Brain Shape In Just Days, Neuroscientist SaysJustice by CREDIT: CREDIT: In The Land Of The Free Solitary confinement has been called a ” living death,” cruel and…thinkprogress.orgThe prison’s alleged decision to subject Mr. King to this treatment until he allowed his penis to be cut open grew out of prison officials’ apparent disapproval of a decision King made while he was still a free man. In 2008, more than three years before his incarceration, King tattooed his penis and had marbles implanted in it because he and his late fiancée believed that doing so would enhance their sexual pleasure. It’s not the sort of decision most people would make, but it was his right to make it. King says that he told the processing officer about the implants when he was admitted into the prison, but this information did not make it into his file.
Nearly a year into his incarceration, King was ordered to report to the prison’s medical ward after another inmate reportedly accused him of inserting the implants during his prison term — which would have violated the prison’s rules. A nurse examined his penis, determined that the implants were not recently inserted, and that there was no signs of infection.
Yet, despite the nurse’s findings, King alleges, he was given 60 days of solitary confinement as punishment and effectively had 90 days added to the time he had to serve in prison. At some point during his solitary confinement, King says he was taken to a hospital, where a doctor again determined that the implants “were not recently inserted and that there was no medical need to remove them.”
Nevertheless, upon his return to the prison, the deputy warden allegedly told King to “get comfortable you stupid Son of a Bitch,” and that King would “be placed in Administrative Segregation until you do as I say and have those marbles removed.” When King protested, the deputy warden allegedly responded “I can do what the Fuck I want.”
Eventually, after months in solitary, King relented. He says that he agreed to the surgery in order to free himself from his segregated cell. And that the surgery led to the scarring, numbness and physical pain that he now experiences.
In any event, a federal appeals court concluded that King’s case should move forward in King v. Rubenstein. Among other things, Judge Roger Gregory explained for the court, a person does not lose their constitutional right to be free from unlawful searches and seizures while they are incarcerated — at least in egregious cases such as this one. A person’s “interest in bodily integrity involves the ‘most personal and deep-rooted expectations of privacy,’” Gregory wrote. He added that “the nature of the surgery itself — surgery into King’s penis — counsels against reasonableness.”
Gregory’s opinion also revived a handful of other claims, including King’s allegation that his right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment was violated, and a claim that King was singled out for inferior treatment relative to other inmates who also had implants.
One fact that played a key role in the court’s analysis is that it is not at all clear why the prison allegedly felt it was necessary to force King to undergo an elective surgery on his genitals. “The implants posed no medical risk to King,” Gregory wrote, “were not recently implanted, and were not accessible nonsurgically. The defendants do not appear to have made any attempt to confirm whether the marbles posed a security risk and could not explain why they could not monitor King’s marbles in the same way as other types of preincarceration body modifications.”