out-weigh the known medical risks related to implementing involuntary medication administration[.]” (Id.) (S) The IMA Procedure, and Plaintiffs Treatment Thereunder, Comport with Due Process Requirements [7] In this case, Defendants assert and the Court agrees, that the IMA Procedure utilized by the New Jersey DOC satisfies both substantive and procedural due process requirements. Substantively, the IMA Procedure models the approved policy in Washington because it only applies where a treating psychiatrist determines that psychotropic medication is clinically indicated and in the best medical interest of a seriously mentally ill inmate who presents a danger to himself or others. Compare (Ex. B to Deck of Kippie Pelzer, DOC 65), with Washington, 494 U.S. at 227, 110 S.Ct. 1028 (<HOLDING>) Accordingly, the record demonstrates that the
holding that an inmate stated a claim under the due process clause when guards had placed her in a cell with a dangerous inmate holding that the due process clause permits the state to treat a prison inmate who has a serious mental illness with antipsychotic drugs against his will if the inmate is dangerous to himself or others and the treatment is in the inmates medical interest holding that the due process clause permits the state to treat a prison inmate  with antipsychotic drugs against his will under certain circumstances while not limiting treatment to those circumstances holding that the due process clause permits the state to involuntarily treat a prison inmate who is seriously mentally ill if the inmate is dangerous to himself or others and the treatment is in the inmates medical interest holding that inmate has a liberty interest under the due process clause to refuse the involuntary administration of psychotropic drugs