or other thought disturbances.” “Clinical necessity” was the basis for Green’s involuntary medication. Green interprets the Policy’s language to require a “clinical emergency” before a “clinical necessity” allows forced medication. He relies on the structure of the Policy, which outlines the two standards, places clinical emergency before clinical necessity, ency has abated, [if] the psychiatrist or physician believes that involuntary medication is still warranted, a clinical due process hearing should be arranged.” The Policy has an alternative avenue for involuntary medication: clinical necessity. The Due Process Clause does not require that an inmate’s mental state become an emergency before involuntary treatment may be imposed. See Riggins, 504 U.S. at 135, 112 S.Ct. 1810 (<HOLDING>). The “clinical necessity” applies to
holding that there may be an obligation to defend under an insurance policy even though there is no obligation to indemnify recognizing justification step holding that summary judgment may be reversed when it is based on an error of law holding that when original jurisdiction claims are dismissed before trial the district court must decline to exercise jurisdiction over pendent state claims unless there is an affirmative justification for doing so holding that inmates may be involuntarily medicated when there is an overriding justification