United States District Court, D. Alaska
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
TIMOTHY M. BURGESS, District Judge.
Adam Israel, representing himself, filed a Prisoner's Civil Rights Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. After the Court reviewed the Complaint, as required under 28 U.S.C. § 1915,  Israel informed that Court that it misinterpreted his case:
The court has misconstrued Israel's complaint as an alleged Due Process violation by Alaska Department of Corrections for involuntarily medicating him [Docket 1@1-2]: The medical malpractice claim outlined in his complaint alleges that he was falsely diagnosed with a severe mental illness, which restricts access to rehabilitative programming, and adversely affects his chances for discretionary parole [Docket 1@3]. The treatment of such an illness by administration of psychotropic medication, involuntarily or otherwise, is unwarranted. But Israel has not claimed to be medicated "without his permission" at the present time, or that it was the result of any procedural violation. The diagnosis of paranoid schitzophrenia [sic] itself is in effect a sentence condemning him, and there is no other process by which it may be reviewed for its rationale or factual basis.
The sole purpose of this action is to refute the diagnosis by proving that it is unfounded.
Because this Court has no jurisdiction over a medical malpractice action,  Israel's case was dismissed.
Israel now moves for reconsideration of the dismissal:
Israel notified the court that it had misconstrued his complaint as an allegation that he was being involuntarily medicated without Due Process. Israel reiterated his position, describing the action as an allegation of medical malpractice (1), which affects his liberty interest: the unsubstantiated diagnosis of Paranoid Schitzophrenia [sic] changes his status by restricting access to rehabilitative programming (2), and negatively affects his chances for discretionary parole (3)....
The diagnosis is at the heart of the issue. There is no process to challenge their decision within the department or through any State regulatory authority. The cumulative effects of their actions therefore violates Israel's Constitutional rights.
Israel does assert a Due Process violation (4), but not in the particular respect that the court had interpreted it to be. The false diagnosis is being used to inflict punishment, without Due Process.
Israel thus claims that medical malpractice - the "unsubstantiated diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia" - "is at the heart of the issue, " from which stems (1) the violation of his current right to rehabilitation, and also (2) affects his future chances for discretionary parole. But there is no federal constitutional right to rehabilitation,  and Israel's due process claim with respect to the possibility of future discretionary parole is not ripe,  and is unlikely to succeed.
Because the crux of the complaint addresses state court issues, the Motion for Reconsideration will be denied. Israel may, however, bring his medical malpractice claim, as well as his claim ...