United States of America v. Eric Griffin

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ERIC GRIFFIN,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 11-10621
D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00493-RLH-RJJ-
1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Roger L. Hunt, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 11, 2012**
San Francisco, California
Before: FERNANDEZ, CALLAHAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Defendant-Appellant Eric Griffin appeals the district court’s order of
involuntary medication to restore Griffin to competency to stand trial. We have
jurisdiction under the collateral-order exception. Sell v. United States, 539 U.S.
FILED
JUN 18 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
166, 176–77 (2003). The parties are familiar with the facts underlying the appeal
and thus we do not include them here.
The government must prove the four Sell factors by clear and convincing
evidence. United States v. Ruiz-Gaxiola, 623 F.3d 684, 692 (9th Cir. 2010). The
district court did not err in finding that the government met its burden. First, the
district court did not clearly err in finding the government has an important interest
at stake in prosecuting Griffin for an admittedly serious crime with the possibility
of a substantial prison sentence. Second and third, the district court did not clearly
err in finding involuntary medication is necessary to and will substantially advance
that government interest; Griffin has refused medication, other treatments have
either been refused or failed, and two doctors testified that medication is likely to
return Griffin to competency and that he is very unlikely to return to competency
absent medication. Fourth and finally, the district court did not clearly err in
finding involuntary medication is medically appropriate where two doctors
testified that medication has minimal side effects and will likely provide significant
medical benefits to Griffin.
In addition, the district court’s order must specify:
(1) the specific medication or range of medications that the treating
physicians are permitted to use in their treatment of the defendant, (2) the
maximum dosages that may be administered, and (3) the duration of time

-- 2 of 3 --

3
that involuntary treatment of the defendant may continue before the treating
physicians are required to report back to the court on the defendant’s mental
condition and progress.
United States v. Hernandez-Vasquez, 513 F.3d 908, 911 (2008). Here, although
the district court did not lay out the Hernandez-Vasquez factors in detail in the
order authorizing involuntary medication, the court ordered administration of “the
recommended medicine according to the procedures recommended.” We read this
to incorporate the recommendations in Dr. Wolfson’s Proposed Treatment Plan.
We read that Plan to recommend (1) administration of risperidone or ziprasidone,
unless Griffin requests a different second generation anti-psychotic drug that is
substantially likely to render Griffin competent to stand trial, as recognized by the
district court; (2) administration of the drugs at no higher a dosage than the high
end of the listed typical dosage range (i.e., 8 mg/day for risperidone or 180 mg/day
for ziprasidone, if administered orally, or the efficaciously comparable amounts if
administered by injection); and (3) treatment for no longer than four months
without additional court authorization. The district court’s order incorporating
these recommendations sufficiently specified Griffin’s treatment for the purposes
of Hernandez-Vasquez.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --