## Facts

- James Boyd Mackey, a California state prisoner, consented to transfer to the California Medical Facility at Vacaville for electric-shock treatment.
- Mackey alleged that prison medical staff administered succinylcholine to him while he was fully conscious.
- He claimed the drug was given without his consent and outside the scope of the shock treatment to which he had consented.
- He alleged the drug caused frightening paralysis and inability to breathe, and was not recommended for use on conscious patients because of those effects.
- He asserted the administration was part of medical or psychiatric experimentation involving “aversive treatment” of offenders.
- He alleged continuing psychological and physical effects, including recurrent nightmares and distress.
- Proceeding pro se, Mackey filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against prison and medical officials, including supervisory corrections officials, alleging deliberate and malicious infliction of mental and emotional distress amounting to cruel and unusual punishment.

## Issues

1. Whether allegations that prison medical staff intentionally administered a powerful paralytic drug to a conscious prisoner without consent as part of experimentation state a claim for cruel and unusual punishment actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
2. Whether supervisory officials could be dismissed at the pleading stage for lack of specific allegations of their personal participation, given the pro se complaint and allegations suggesting institutional practices.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held Mackey’s allegations, if proven, could constitute cruel and unusual punishment and were not limited to a malpractice theory.
- The court held dismissal of supervisory defendants (including Procunier and Pope) solely for failure to plead detailed personal participation was premature at the pleading stage in this context.
- Wright, J., dissented; Kilkenny, J., concurred in the result.

## Legal Principles

- A prisoner states a § 1983 claim under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments when the alleged conduct, if true, goes beyond negligent medical care and describes intentional, non-therapeutic infliction of severe fear or suffering through nonconsensual medical procedures.
- Allegations of nonconsensual medical or psychiatric experimentation on prisoners can constitute cruel and unusual punishment when they plausibly describe purposeful infliction of pain, terror, or severe distress.
- Pro se civil rights pleadings are construed liberally on a motion to dismiss; courts assess whether the facts alleged could support relief rather than limiting the case to the label attached by the plaintiff or the district court.
- When allegations indicate potentially institutional practices or policies, dismissal of supervisory defendants at the pleading stage for lack of detailed participation allegations may be improper before factual development.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that a prisoner’s allegations of intentional, nonconsensual experimental administration of a frightening paralytic drug while conscious plausibly stated an Eighth Amendment claim under § 1983, and that early dismissal—both as “mere malpractice” and as to supervisory officials—was improper.


Mackey v. Procunier, 477 F.2d 877 (9th Cir. 1973)