[The inmate] was assessed by a psychological counselor as disoriented, paranoid, and psychotic. He told her that he was at the World Trade Center getting messages from satellites. She obtained an order for his transfer to the inpatient psychiatric unit at the jail.

That afternoon, [the inmate] was informed that he must “dress-out.” In the argot of the jail, “to dress-out” was to change from one’s civilian clothes to prison garb approved by Sheriff Arpaio. The prison outfit included pink underwear. [The inmate] declined to change.

The “dress-out” prison officer summoned assistance””four other officers, each to hold an arm or a leg while [the inmate’s] clothes were changed. He was placed on the ground, stripped of all his clothes, and forced into the jail ensemble including the pink underwear. As the process went on, he shouted that he was being raped. The officers were aware that he was being transferred to the Psychiatric Unit. At the end of the “dress-out” [the inmate] was wheeled there in “a restraint chair.”

Wagner v. County of Maricopa, 706 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir. 2012).   The district court
ruled that [the inmate’s] counsel could not refer to “pink underwear” unless he could show that the record contained “credible evidence” that [the inmate] was aware of the color of the underwear.
Id. at 945-46.   So while Sheriff Joe’s signature bad-ass maneuver is making inmates wear pink underwear, the jury wasn’t permitted to know this.   The Ninth Circuit reversed, id. at 947, and generally showed an admirable hostility to the district court’s severe restrictions on the plaintiff’s case.   Sadly, the Ninth Circuit’s decision opens with this unfortunate statement:
The central figure in this case . . . suffered from mental illness. Our system of laws is administered by rational human beings. It has always been a challenge to the legal system to interact with the irrational.

Id. at 944.   We have such a very long way to go.