AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Corrections Law for
Jails, Prisons and Detention Facilities
Back to list of subjects Back to Legal Publications Menu
Prison & Jail Conditions: General
Monthly Law Journal Article: Prisoner Lawsuits Concerning Specific Conditions of Confinement - Part 1 of 3. 2018 (12) AELE Mo. L. J. 301.
Monthly Law Journal Article: Prisoner Lawsuits Concerning Specific Conditions of Confinement - Part 2 of 3. 2019 (1) AELE Mo. L. J. 301.
Monthly Law Journal Article: Prisoner Lawsuits Concerning Specific Conditions of Confinement - Part 3 of 3. 2019 (2) AELE Mo. L. J. 301.
Asbestos
Bugs and Vermin
Cleaning Supplies, soap, denial of toothbrush or
toothpaste
Clothing, shoes, and
protective gear
Dampness
Exposure to Hazards
Fire Safety
Food utensils, food
handling, serving containers, and other feeding conditions
Illumination and access to sunlight
Noise
Possessions
Sanitary Conditions - General
Sanitary Conditions: Showers
Sanitary Conditions - Toilets and
Toilet Paper
Sleeping Accommodations, mattresses,
blankets, double or triple celling, and cell size
Solitary Confinement/Isolation
Temperature: Hot or Cold
Ventilation and air quality
Water: Cleaning,
Drinking, and Bathing
General
A federal appeals court upheld summary judgment for a sheriff in a lawsuit claiming that he violated a jail detainee’s Fourteenth Amendment rights by failing to provide him with a bed during his three-and-a-half day stay at an inmate reception center (IRC). The court found that exigent circumstances, specifically inmate disturbances and lockdowns justified denying the plaintiff a bed for his three-and-a-half day stay. Even if a Fourteenth Amendment violation did occur, the trial court correctly held that the sheriff was entitled to qualified immunity because the right asserted by the plaintiff—not being forced to sleep on the floor during a jail lockdown—was not clearly established at the time of the events. Olivier v. Baca, #13-56371, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 1019 (9th Cir.).
When plaintiff detainees show that their conditions of confinement have been restricted solely because of overcrowding or understaffing at a facility, a deference instruction ordinarily should not be given. Similarly, if they prove that they have been subjected to search procedures that are an unnecessary, unjustified, or exaggerated response to concerns about jail safety, the court need not defer to jail officials. The plaintiff appealed the partial grant of summary judgment for defendants on her lawsuit alleging inadequate medical care, and the denial of her motion for a new trial. She challenged several conditions of her confinement and the procedures that the county used to classify her as mentally ill. A federal appeals court held that the magistrate judge should not have given the deference instruction to the plaintiff's conditions of confinement claims, where the only justification that jail officials offered for curtailing her meals, showers, and recreation was a concern about overcrowding and understaffing in the facility. The appeals court also held that the magistrate judge erred in instructing the jury to give deference to the jail officials on her claim of excessive search, because substantial evidence supported her arguments that this search practice was an unnecessary, unjustified, and exaggerated response to jail officials’ need for prison security. Shorter v. Baca, #16-56051, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 19491 (9th Cir.).
Sexually violent predator (SVP) detainees in a California correctional facility were subject to essentially the same conditions of confinement as their criminal counterparts and were more restrictive than conditions in a state hospital. The conditions in administrative segregation to which the detainee was subjected were substantially more restrictive than the conditions faced by the general criminal population and the detainee was viciously attacked. These conditions could be found to amount to impermissible punishment. The county and sheriff in his official capacity could be held liable in damages, but the sheriff could not be held liable in his individual capacity, so summary judgment for the county and sheriff in his official capacity was overturned. King v. County of Los Angeles, #14-55320, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 6045 (9th Cir.).
A federal appeals court ruled that Younger v. Harris, #2, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) holding that federal courts were required to abstain from hearing any civil rights tort claims brought by a person who is currently being prosecuted for a matter arising from that claim, did not require the trial court to abstain from hearing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the conditions of pretrial detention in state court. It held that the state had acted in good faith throughout this litigation with respect to the substantive merits of the claims. The petitioner’s case fell within the “irreparable harm” exception to Younger when he had been incarcerated for over six months without a constitutionally adequate bail hearing, and he had properly exhausted his state remedies as to his bail hearing. The trial court was ordered to grant a conditional writ of habeas corpus, providing that the writ issue unless the California Superior Court conducted a new constitutionally compliant bail hearing within fourteen days. Arevalo v. Hennessy, #17-17545, 882 F.3d 763 (9th Cir.).
While death row inmates housed in cells without air conditioning showed that their Eighth Amendment rights had been violated and that it was appropriate to grant injunctive relief, the federal trial court exceeded the bounds of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) and Gates v. Cook, 376 F.3d 323 (5th Cir. 2004) by requiring facility-wide air conditioning and setting a maximum heat index. The trial court erroneously addressed the propriety of a maximum heat index, found that it was necessary, and issued a modified injunction that in some instances imposed it. Further proceedings were ordered. Ball v. LeBlanc, #17-30052, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 2402 (5th Cir.).
A federal appeals court upheld a preliminary injunction against alleged inhumane and punitive treatment in a lawsuit brought by civil detainees confined in U.S. Customs and Border Protection facilities in the Tucson, Arizona area. The appeals court ruled that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction requiring that the defendants provide the detainees with mats and blankets after 12 hours, and properly applied prior precedent, supported by evidence in the record. Doe v. Kelly, #17-15381, 878 F.3d 710 (9th Cir.).
Prisoners who had disabilities making them particularly susceptible to heat and who claimed that correctional officials failed to reasonably accommodate the While death row inmates housed in cells without air conditioning showed that their Eighth Amendment rights had been violated and that it was appropriate to grant injunctive relief, the federal trial court exceeded the bounds of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) and Gates v. Cook, 376 F.3d 323 (5th Cir. 2004) by requiring facility-wide air conditioning and setting a maximum heat index. The trial court erroneously addressed the propriety of a maximum heat index, found that it was necessary, and issued a modified injunction that in some instances imposed it. Further proceedings were ordered. Ball v. LeBlanc, #17-30052, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 2402 (5th Cir.).
A federal appeals court upheld a preliminary injunction against alleged inhumane and punitive treatment in a lawsuit brought by civil detainees confined in U.S. Customs and Border Protection facilities in the Tucson, Arizona area. The appeals court ruled that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction requiring that the defendants provide the detainees with mats and blankets after 12 hours, and properly applied prior precedent, supported by evidence in the record. Doe v. Kelly, #17-15381, 878 F.3d 710 (9th Cir.).
ir disabilities that impacted their ability to withstand extreme heat sued, asserting claims under the Eighth Amendment, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Rehabilitation Act. A federal appeals court, upholding class certification, found no error in the trial court's ruling that a facility’s heat mitigation measures were not effective to bring the risk of serious harm below the constitutional baseline for the plaintiff prisoners. Class certification was appropriate because the same acts were the source of injury for all inmates as they were all subjected to the same lack of air-conditioning, had the same available heat-mitigation measures, and were all harmed by exposure to excessive heat and they identified specific injunctive relief of maintaining a heat index of 88 degrees or lower. Yates v. Collier, #16-20505, 868 F.3d 354 (5th Cir. 2017).
Three Virginia death row inmates claimed
that their conditions of confinement constituted cruel and unusual punishment
in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Among other things, they spent 23 hours a
day alone, had only non-contact visits and contact visitations with immediate
family members were subject to unspecified "extreme circumstances"
with the warden maintaining unconstrained discretion to grant or deny such
requests, and were barred from joining general population inmates for vocational,
educational, or behavioral programming.After the lawsuit was filed, the
defendants substantially changed the policies governing the conditions of
confinement for prisoners on Virginia's death row, addressing virtually all of
the issues raised in the complaint. The appeals court agreed with plaintiffs
that the defendants' voluntary cessation of the challenged practice has not yet
mooted this action because the defendants failed to meet the U.S. Supreme
Court's requirement of showing that it was absolutely clear the allegedly
wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur. In this case,
nothing barred the Corrections Department from reverting to the challenged
policies in the future. Porter v. Clarke, #16-7044, 2017 U.S. App. Lexis 5217 (4th Cir.).
A trial
court erred when it granted summary judgment to officers who worked at a
booking facility between certain dates on twenty pretrial detainees’ claims
alleging that conditions of their confinement while awaiting arraignment
violated their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment on the basis that no jury
could have found that nine challenged conditions, considered together or
separately, amounted to an objective constitutional deprivation. Established
standards for evaluating objective deprivations extended to all nine
conditions, including overcrowding and unusable toilets, and each condition had
to be measured by its severity and duration, not the resulting injury. The
conditions also had to be analyzed in combination, at least where one alleged
deprivation had a bearing on another. The trial
court did not conduct the appropriate analysis. Darnell v. City of New York,
#15-2870, 849 F.3d 17 (2nd Cir. 2017).
A
trial court erred in granting a warden summary judgment in a prisoner's lawsuit
alleging that his conditions of confinement in disciplinary segregation
violated the Eighth Amendment. There was evidence that the warden had actual
knowledge of unusually harsh weather conditions and that the windows in the
prisoner's cell would not close, having himself toured the segregation unit.
The warden's "plainly inappropriate" response to the inmate's
grievance and to the extreme cold faced by him allowed an inference that he was
deliberately indifferent to the plaintiff's suffering. Haywood v. Hathaway,
#12-1678, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 21367 (7th Cir.).
An inmate claimed that
the warden of the facility where he was incarcerated violated the Eighth
Amendment by failing to adequately address the infestation of vermin, insects,
and birds in his cell. He alleged that the prison only cleaned
"infrequently," and failed to repair either broken windows or holes
in the walls. The inmate, who suffers from asthma, asserted that he had not had
an attack for seven years before arriving at this prison. A federal appeals
court overturned summary judgment for the warden, ruling that these individual
claims were prematurely dismissed, and that on remand the trial court could
determine how to coordinate the case with a pending class action raising
similar allegations. There were triable issues of fact for a jury, which should
determine the degree of both physical and psychological harm the plaintiff
suffered because of the alleged conditions. Gray v. Hardy, #13-3413, 2016 U.S.
App. Lexis 11575 (7th Cir.).
A California prisoner was "validated"
as a prison-gang associate and placed in secured housing. A year later, the
state amended its laws so that secured housing prison-gang associates could no
longer earn future good-time credit. He filed a writ of habeas corpus in state
court challenging the application of the changed law to him as an ex post facto
law impermissibly enhancing his punishment. His petition was rejected by the
trial court and a state intermediate appellate court on grounds that he had
filed it in the wrong county. He then filed an original petition for habeas
relief with the California Supreme Court, which was also summarily denied. The
federal district court denied the prisoner's ex post facto claim under the
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), which requires a
state prisoner seeking federal habeas relief to exhaust state remedies, 28
U.S.C. 2254(b)(1)(A). If the state courts adjudicate a federal claim “on the
merits,” AEDPA mandates deferential, rather than de novo, review, unless the
state-court decision “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application
of, clearly established Federal law,”, or “was based on an unreasonable
determination of the facts.” In this case, a federal appeals court incorrectly
ruled that the California Supreme Court's ruling was not on the merits. While
the lower California courts rejected the prisoner's petition for reasons of
improper venue, which did not deal with the merits, there is only one
California Supreme Court, and he filed an original petition there, so improper
venue could not have been the basis, the decision was on the merits, and any
federal review of the issue should therefore have used a "differential
lens" on the state court ruling. Kernan v. Hinojas, #15-833, 136 S. Ct.
1603, 194 L. Ed. 2d 701, 2016 U.S. Lexis 3051, 84 U.S.L.W. 4284.
A prisoner filed an intended class action lawsuit
against a private prison company claiming that they inadequately staffed a
prison in deliberate indifference to the health and safety of prisoners. The
parties settled and the company agreed to staff the prison with a specified
number of security personnel. The trial court later held the company in
contempt for falsifying staffing reports. An appeals court upheld the trial
court's remedy of extending the settlement agreement for two years. This remedy
was narrowly drawn, necessary, and the least intrusive means to rectify the
company's continued Eighth Amendment violations. The appeals court upheld the
contempt order and an award of attorneys' fees against the defendant. Kelly v.
Wengler, #13-35972, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 9381 (9th Cir.).
A pretrial detainee, who was an Army veteran, was
enrolled in a special veterans' program. He worked in the jail laundry and
lived in a special veterans' wing, apart from the general population. He sued,
claiming that he was paid $3 a day but should have been paid the federal
minimum wage, and that he was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, given
insufficient food, was subjected to rodents and insects, had to drink filthy
water, lacked outdoor recreation, and had to stand in a "hot, smelly
room" for several hours each day. A trial court held that the plaintiff
had no constitutional right to be paid at all for his work in jail, much less
to be paid minimum wage. Other conditions of confinement claims were dismissed
without prejudice for deficiencies in pleading. A federal appeals court
reversed the dismissal of the inadequate food and contaminated water claims,
but otherwise affirmed. Smith v. Dart, #14-1169, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 17003
(7th Cir.).
Death row inmates at a new prison that has no air
conditioning claimed that the heat they were exposed to during the summer
violated their Eighth Amendment rights because of their pre-existing medical
conditions and disabilities, including hypertension, obesity, diabetes,
depression, and high cholesterol. They also claimed that this constituted
disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42
U.S.C. 12132, and the Rehabilitation Act (RA), 29 U.S.C. 794. A federal appeals
court upheld a trial court finding of deliberate indifference constituting an
Eighth Amendment violation, as the heat put the plaintiffs at substantial risk
of serious harm, but found that an injunction issued requiring the installation
of air conditioning throughout death row was overbroad under prior precedent
and the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. 3626, so that further
proceedings were required. The appeals court upheld the rejection of the disability
discrimination claims, however, as the prisoners failed to present evidence to
prove that they were disabled. Ball v. LeBlanc, #14-30067, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis
11769 (5th Cir.).
Thirteen Arizona inmates filed a class action
lawsuit against senior officials of the state department of corrections,
claiming that there were systematic violations of the Eighth Amendment in their
conditions of confinement, including inadequate medical care, dental care,
mental health care, and conditions of confinement in isolation cells. A class
of 33,000 prisoners incarcerated in state prisons was certified. A federal
appeals court rejected arguments that the diverse class of prisoners did not
have an Eighth Amendment claim, let alone a common claim. A petition for rehearing
en banc was denied over a strong dissent by one judge. Parsons v. Ryan,
#13-16396, 754 F.3d 657 (9th Cir. 2014), rehearing en banc denied, Parsons v.
Ryan, #13-16396, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 6556 (9th Cir.).
An African-American prisoner at a California-state
prisoner sued following a lockdown imposed on African-American inmates,
complaining, among other things, of injuries he suffered related to shower
restrictions, and about the race-based classification of the lockdown. A
federal appeals court found that the conditions imposed did not violate Eighth
Amendment restrictions on cruel and unusual punishment, for which deliberate
indifference had to be shown. That did not, however, bar an equal protection
claim for race discrimination under the Fourteenth Amendment. The trial court
erred, on the equal protection claim, in allowing the jury to defer generally
to officials rather than determining whether the challenged race-based actions
were narrowly tailored. Harrington v. Scribner, #09-16951, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis
7545 (9th Cir.).
In a case concerning compliance reports about
improving conditions in two correctional facilities under a settlement
agreement between the U.S. government and a New York County, the reports were
sealed from public disclosure. The New York ACLU intervened in the case,
seeking to have the reports unsealed. A federal appeals court ruled that a
fundamental right of the public under the First Amendment to have access to
judicial documents was wrongly denied by the sealing of the reports, which were
ordered unsealed. United States v. Erie County, #13-3653, 763 F.3d 235 (2nd
Cir. 2014).
Prison officials filed an appeal from a trial
court order certifying a class and a subclass of prisoners in Arizona state
facilities to assert claims that they had been subjected to systematic Eighth
Amendment violations by prison conditions. A federal appeals court found that
the trial court did not abuse its discretion in certifying the class since the
plaintiffs' claims depended on common questions of law or fact, satisfying the
commonality and typicality requirements. Parsons v. Ryan, #13-16396, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 10466 (9th
Cir.).
A prisoner sued over conditions in a facility,
claiming that a shower floor was unsafe and slippery, that he had fallen three
times and suffered a fractured hip, and that he had received inadequate medical
care for his injuries. Prisoner slip and fall claims, the appeals court held,
almost never serve as the basis for constitutional violations as a matter of law.
Claims against two defendants who allegedly ignored the plaintiff's complaints
and pleas for help, however, should not have been dismissed. The allegation
that a hearing officer ignored the prisoner's complaint about his back pain
during a hearing on an entirely different matter did not state an Eighth
Amendment claim. Coleman v. Sweetin, #12-40012, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 4644 (5th
Cir.).
A prisoner claimed that having continuous 24-hour
a day light in his cell was a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. A
federal appeals court found that there were material issues of fact as to how
bright the light in the cell was, what effect it had on him, and whether the
defendants were deliberately indifferent to that effect. Assuming that the
defendants could defeat the Eighth Amendment claim by showing a legitimate
penological interest in the constant cell illumination, so far they had failed
to do so. Grenning v. Miller-Stout, #11-35579, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 865 (9th
Cir.).
A $4.1 million settlement has been reached in a claim
by a 25-year-old college student who was apparently abandoned in a windowless
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) cell for almost five days with no food or
water. During those days, the plaintiff claimed, he drank his own urine, attempted
to carve a farewell message to his mother in his arm with a shard of broken
glass, and had hallucinations that made him believe that DEA agents were
sending gases through vents to try to poison him. When finally discovered, he
was suffering from severe dehydration, kidney failure, 15 pounds of weight
loss, a lung punctured by swallowed glass, and post-traumatic stress disorder.
Following the incident, the DEA adopted new national detention standards
mandating daily inspections of cells and in cell cameras. Chong v. United
States, demand notice sent to DEA, claim settled July 30, 2013.
A prisoner adequately alleged a pattern of repeated
prison-wide lockdowns for flimsy or no reasons at all. His grievance only
listen two specific lockdowns, but mentioned 14 others and claimed that they
were the result of a conspiracy among union employee and prison officials to
artificially create a staff shortage and negotiate a pay raise. He adequately
exhausted administrative remedies. In a less than three year period, the
facility was locked down for 534 days, or more than 50% of the time. While none
of the lockdowns were longer than 90 days, they could violate applicable norms
if imposed for some "utterly trivial" infraction, such as isolated
fights, rumors of potential fights, or no reason. He also stated a viable claim
for unlawful deprivation of exercise when he asserted that it caused him
serious medical conditions and injuries. Eighth Amendment claims for
overcrowding, lack of hygiene and medical care, small cells, and overcrowding
had all been the subject of prior lawsuits against the facility, similar to
conditions described by the plaintiff, and these claims were also viable.
Turley v. Rednour, #11-1491, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 13571 (7th Cir.).
The
trial court acted properly in dismissing a prisoner's individual capacity
claims against a warden concerning supposed health, safety, and communications
issues allegedly imposing unconstitutional conditions of confinement when there
were no allegations, either directly or indirectly that the warden had himself
acted or failed to act in any way that would subject him to personal liability.
At the same time, the trial court did not properly exercise its discretion by
refusing to allow the prisoner to attempt to amend his complaint. Grullon v.
City of New Haven, #11-3184, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 12445 (2nd Cir.).
A prisoner who served almost 28 months in a six-man
cell claimed that conditions there constituted cruel and unusual punishment in
violation of the Eighth Amendment. His claims were plausible that he was
deprived of the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities and subjected
him to unreasonable health and safety risks because of inadequate space and
ventilation, stifling heat in summer and freezing cold in winter, unsanitary
conditions, including urine and feces on the floor, too narrow a mattress,
insufficient cleaning supplies, and noisy crowded conditions making sleep
difficult and putting him at constant risk of violence from his cellmates. Claims
against some defendants were rejected, but allowed to proceed against others,
with qualified immunity issues to be resolved after further facts were
determined. Walker v. Schult, #12-1806, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 10397 (2nd Cir.).
A pretrial detainee claimed that his conditions
of confinement at a county jail were unconstitutional, and that the sheriff was
deliberately indifferent to his medical needs for an injury to his leg. The
conditions complained of included poor sanitation and hygiene alongside lack of
heat and bedding, blocked ventilation, overcrowding, and inadequate recreation.
These conditions, he argued, together with a failure to provide detainees with
a way to clean themselves with running water or cleaning supplies, stated a
claim for relief. He said that three doctors told him that his leg infection
was the result of the unsanitary conditions. His claim for medical indifference
was rejected, since he received ongoing observation, medication, and medical
attention, but the federal appeals court ordered further proceedings on his
unconstitutional conditions of confinement claim. Budd v. Motley, #11-3425,
2013 U.S. App. Lexis 6557 (7th Cir.).
A visitor to New Orleans was arrested for public
intoxication and placed in the local jail just before Hurricane Katrina struck.
He and other pretrial detainees were moved to higher cell tiers when water
began rising in their cells, but in their new location, they were in their
cells for days without water or food. Eventually evacuated by boat to a highway
overpass with thousands of others from local detention facilities, he allegedly
experienced additional thirst, hunger, and heat. The failure to bring him to
court within 48 hours for a probable cause determination was excused by an
emergency situation exception to the general rule, barring his false
imprisonment claim. The failure to give him back his cell phone to allow him to
call his attorney when the jail phone system was overloaded did not violate his
rights under the circumstances because of the dangers of allowing detainees to
possess cell phones. There was no liability for the various hardships cause by
the circumstances of the hurricane. Waganfeald v. Gusman, #11-30081, 2012 U.S.
App. Lexis 5139 (5th Cir.).
Summary judgment was properly entered against a
prisoner in his lawsuit over his conditions of confinement. While there were
indeed feces on the wall of his cell, the plaintiff prisoner was the one who
put it there, and correctional employees took necessary measures to see to it
that both the prisoner and his cell were cleaned after the mess was created.
There was no evidence that the prisoner was denied any of life's basic
necessities. Banks v. Mozingo, #10-2259, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 7899 (Unpub. 3rd
Cir.).
Despite a prisoner's complaints, a policy of
double-bunking did not violate his constitutional rights, nor did one night
spent with an "unhappy" cellmate demonstrate unconstitutional
conditions of confinement. The prisoner's Eighth Amendment claims were properly
dismissed. Allen v. Figuera, #10-1162, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 6097 (10th Cir.).
A prisoner claimed that correctional officers
retaliated against him for filing grievances by activating a "purge
fan" that caused the temperature in his cell to drop below freezing for
approximately four hours for three mornings in a row. A federal appeals court
upheld a jury determination that the plaintiff did not prove his claim. Bibbs
v. Early, #09-10557, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 5767 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
A federal judge has denied a county's motion to
dismiss a federal civil rights lawsuit by a pretrial detainee at its jail
seeking damages for injuries he suffered when a rat allegedly came out of a
hole in his mattress and bit his penis, causing him sexual dysfunction and
emotional distress. The plaintiff argued that the county acted with
"deliberate indifference to his health and safety in failing to adequately
protect him from rodents." There were allegedly eleven prisoner complaints
about rodents in the two years prior to the incident, as well as 50 prisoners
signing a petition requesting action against the presence of rodents, and the
plaintiff claimed that adequate corrective measures were not taken. The trial
judge agreed that the allegations were sufficient to survive summary judgment.
Solomon v. Nassau County, #08-CV-703, U.S. Dist. Ct. (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2011).
A pretrial detainee in a county jail contracted
Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (“MRSA”), a staph infection
resistant to usual penicillin-type antibiotics. A jury awarded him damages.
Upholding this result and a finding of county liability, a federal appeals
court found that there was evidence that the county knew of the presence of a
staph infection in the jail, including an infection rate as high as 20%, yet
failed to adopt known measures that would have combated it, such as installing
hand washing and disinfecting stations and using alcohol-based hand sanitizers,
and continued to house detainees in conditions leading to infection. Duvall v.
Dallas Cty., #09-10660, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 660 (5th Cir.).
A California prisoner claimed that night light in
his cell caused him insomnia in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights.
Rejecting this claim, a federal appeals court noted that there was undisputed
medical evidence that the amount of illumination coming from the night light in
the cell would not cause insomnia. Further, there were medical records
indicating that the plaintiff "had complained of insomnia, stress, and
depression before the new night light policy was implemented, and continued to
complain of insomnia and other symptoms after he was transferred to a prison
that did not have night lights." Walker v. Woodford, #08-56676, 2010 U.S.
App. Lexis 18210 (Unpub. 9th Cir.).
A Pennsylvania prisoner claimed that conditions
at the facility, including inadequate ventilation in his cell, exposure to
extreme heat and cold, rodent infestation, and overcrowding (allegedly
increasing the risk of infectious diseases) amounted to cruel and unusual
punishment. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants. A
federal appeals court ruled that the prisoner's transfer to another facility
rendered most of his arguments on appeal moot, such as his request for
injunctive relief, as he had not shown that he was likely to be again subjected
to the same alleged conditions. What was not moot was his claim for money
damages, based solely on an alleged risk of future harm as a result of exposure
to coal smoke in the prison yard. The appeals court upheld the rejection of
this claim, as the prisoner had presented no medical or scientific evidence
that he faces an actual risk of future harm. Griffin v. Beard, #09-4404, 2010
U.S. App. Lexis 23659 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
A former pretrial detainee claimed that she was subjected
to unconstitutional conditions of confinement at a county detention facility.
Specifically, she claimed that she was forced to take medication without food,
which resulted in stomach problems and rendered the medication ineffective.
Such a claim, the appeals court ruled, required expert testimony as the
seriousness of the possible injury or illness would not be apparent.
"Whether a medication is ineffective if it is given without food is not
readily apparent to a lay person." Since the plaintiff offered no such
expert testimony, summary judgment for the defendants was properly entered on
this claim. The plaintiff also challenged her confinement, at times, in
"the green room," which had green tile on three of the walls and a
fourth wall made of glass, lacked any furnishings or stationary objects,
including a traditional toilet, but did have an eight inch drain in the middle
of the floor covered by a grate. The room was used to observe "people
coming down from drugs, violent people or people on suicide watch." The
plaintiff had allegedly engaged in self-destructive behavior. The appeals court
acknowledged that "the absence of a traditional toilet may deprive an
inmate of access to the usual sanitation measures afforded other inmates who are
not at risk of hurting themselves." Two other cells adjacent to the green
room, however, were equipped with traditional toilet facilities, and inmates
confined in the green room are given access to these traditional toilet
facilities upon request. Additionally, in the event an inmate utilizes the
drain to relieve himself/herself, prison staff members were required to clean
the room as soon as it is safe to do so. Patterson v. County of Washington,
#08-3649, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 19496 (Unpub.3rd Cir.).
A county sheriff appealed from a federal court's
order requiring him to take affirmative actions to remedy conditions in county
jails that were found to violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Upholding the trial court's order, the appeals court found that t had not been
erroneous for the court below to hear evidence on both rights violations and
possible remedies at the same hearing. Further, the trial court did not
"clearly err" in finding that air temperatures above 85 degrees
Fahrenheit "greatly increased" the risk of prisoners who took
psychotropic medications suffering from heat-related illnesses, and that the
food provided to prisoners was inadequate. Graves v. Arpaio, #08-17601, 2010
U.S. App. Lexis 21077 (9th Cir.).
A prisoner complained that, for three days,
liquid seeped through vent holes in the cinder block wall of his cell onto the
floor. He failed to show that this condition violated his constitutional
rights, as the jail administrator responded promptly to his complaints, the
incident did not last long, and cleaning materials were made available.
Honeycutt v. Ringold, #10-6077, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 20378 (Unpub. 10th Cir.).
A pretrial detainee failed to show that his
supposedly adverse reaction to HDQ Neutral, a cleaning product used at the
county jail, involved a serious medical need for purposes of trying to
establish that the defendants acted with deliberate indifference in violation
of his constitutional rights. The prisoner, who was taking medication for
asthma, alleged that exposure to the cleaning product caused him to "cough
up blood." The record indicated that a reasonable jury could find that the
prisoner did not show that a physician or other medical personnel had diagnosed
him with a medical condition that required treatment while he was detained. An
examination of the prisoner revealed only some nasal drainage, and otherwise
found him in normal condition, with an instruction that he should move away
from where the cleaning products were being used. While one doctor later stated
an opinion that chemicals used at the jail caused medical problems for the
prisoner, a competing expert rejected the diagnosis of asthma, and found no
evidence of pulmonary fibrosis in a CT scan. The jury thus reasonably
determined that the prisoner failed to establish a serious medical need while
incarcerated. Christian v. Wagner, #09-2417, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 21609(8th
Cir.).
A federal investigation into conditions at Cook
County Jail in Chicago, Illinois allegedly found widespread unconstitutional
conditions resulting in unnecessary inmate deaths and amputations, inadequate
medical care, and routine prisoner beatings. The federal government settled a
lawsuit with the county in an effort to remedy these problems. The agreement
calls for the hiring of 600 additional jail guards, the hiring of four new
outside jail monitors, and improvements in jail medical and mental health
facilities. It also provides for stepped-up inspections for contraband and more
video surveillance of inmate housing. U.S.A. v. Cook County, Illinois,
#10-C-2946 (U.S. Dist Ct., N.D. Ill., May 13, 2010).
The plaintiff inmate did not face atypical
hardships based on any of the conditions of a Behavioral Action Plan, such as
denying him a mattress because of his attempts to use it to harm himself, so he
had no valid due process claim. The conditions imposed also did not amount to
cruel and unusual punishment, since they were not punitive, but instead
intended to protect him from self-harm, and were regularly re-evaluated. The prisoner
also failed to show an excessive use of force based on an incident in which
guards attempted to subdue him using five-point restraints, incapacitating
agents, and a Taser. Bowers v. Pollard, #09-1771, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 20855
(Unpub. 7th Cir.).
A correctional officer was found, by a jury, to
have deprived a prisoner of the "minimal civilized measure of life's
necessities" by compelling him to sleep on an unsanitary mattress for
about two months. The trial court declined to set aside the jury's verdict,
finding that the evidence presented was consistent with a finding of deliberate
indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The officer, however, would
be entitled to a new trial on damages unless the plaintiff prisoner would
accept a reduction in the punitive damages of $295,000 awarded to $29,500.
Townsend v. Allen, #05-cv-204, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 9911 (W.D. Wis.).
A prisoner failed to show that his Eighth
Amendment rights were violated by conditions in isolation, where he was placed
for disciplinary reasons. While he had the "barest" of clothing,
there was no indication that this or the temperature of his cell endangered his
health or safety. There was evidence to show that he received adequate shelter,
medical care, and nutrition while in isolation. Guinn v. Rispoli, #08-4281,
2009 U.S. App. Lexis 8566 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
A civilly committed person sufficiently alleged
that conditions in the facility where he was confined were inhumane to proceed
with his federal civil rights case. Specifically, he alleged that staff members
told him not to drink the facility's water where he was confined, as it was
poisonous, and, unlike water provided to the general population, did not meet
Environmental Protection Agency standards. Other claims involved cell
temperatures reaching as high as 110 degrees, causing him to vomit blood, and
permanent injuries caused by insect bites and stings. White v. Monohan,
#08-2567, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 8205 (Unpub. 7th Cir.).
When the only relief sought by a plaintiff
prisoner was an award of money damages against a defendant commissioner of a
correctional facility, and he failed to allege that this defendant was
personally responsible for the complained of conditions of confinement, the
lawsuit was properly dismissed. Pettus v. Morgenthau, No. 070395, 554 F.3d 293
(2nd Cir. 2009).
Most of the conditions of confinement challenged by
Wisconsin inmates civilly committed as "sexually dangerous" were
justified on the basis of security, including restrictions on visitors, leaving
the facility, phone call monitoring, inspection of mail, property, and the
inmates' persons, requiring restraints during transport, and mandating the
wearing of institutional clothes. Walker v. Hayden, No. 08-2628, 2008 U.S. App.
Lexis 25014 (Unpub. 7th Cir.).
Prison officials promptly remedied inmate's
complaints about a soiled mattress and his placement in a cell with a
transparent plastic shield. His other complaints about cell conditions,
including denying him his chosen cleaning materials, one occasion on which the
cell block flooded, and the passing to him of a toilet brush through the same
cell door slot used to pass wrapped food did not amount to constitutional
violations, but were instead minor inconveniences that were part of prison
life. Wesolowski v. Kamas, 03-CV-6405, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 99263 (W.D.N.Y.).
When none of the individual prison
conditions an inmate complained of involved the deprivation of a human need,
the court need not consider whether these conditions "in combination"
violated his constitutional rights. Lucero v. Mesa County Sheriff's Dept., No.
08-1068, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 24630 (Unpub. 10th Cir.).
Federal appeals court overturns dismissal of
prisoner's lawsuit alleging that prison practices and regulations resulted,
after he paid costs for constitutionally protected litigation, in the inmate
being without the funds to buy needed hygiene products, and that the defendants
acted with deliberate indifference in failing to provide him with such hygiene
products for a prolonged period of time. The appeals court rejected that trial
court's belief that the issue simply amounted to the prisoner's own decision as
how to spend his limited funds. Preliminary injunctive relief, however, was
denied. Whitington v. Ortiz, No. 07-1425, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 651 (Unpub. 10th
Cir.).
Court rejects HIV-positive detainee's claims that
his conditions of confinement violated his rights and that the denial of his
requests to be transferred from an old to a new building in the facility
constituted deliberate indifference to those conditions. While the detainee
claimed that his cell in an older building was hot, had a foul odor, and had
bugs and paint chips, a number of reasons were set forth for the denial of the transfer
request, including his failure to participate in sex-offender treatment, his
HIV-positive status, and his past sexual interactions with other prisoners. The
court ruled that the transfer requests were properly denied, and also that the
conditions of the detainee's confinement could not reasonably be found to be
serious enough to establish an Eighth Amendment violation. Sain v. Wood, No.
06-3919, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 330 (7th Cir.).
Prison rule barring prisoners from talking to
each other while in the dining hall did not violate their rights to free
speech, due process of law, or constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
Hendrickson v. McCreanor, #05-4340, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 24906 (3rd Cir.).
[2006 JB Nov]
Prisoner's failure, in suing over alleged prison
overcrowding, understaffing, and "oppressive cell conditions," to
allege physical injuries did not entirely bar his claims under Prison
Litigation Reform Act, but rather, merely limited remedies available. Federal
appeals court overturns dismissal of lawsuit. Myron v. Terhune, No. 04-15770,
2006 U.S. App. Lexis 20404 (9th Cir.).[2006 JP Oct]
Further proceedings ordered on pre-trial
detainees' lawsuit claiming unconstitutional conditions of confinement because
trial court improperly used Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment
rather than Fourteenth Amendment due process analysis in dismissing claims.
Hubbard v. Taylor, No. 03-2372, 399 F.3d 150 (3d Cir. 2005). [2005 JB May]
California prisoner who had completed his
criminal sentence and was a civil detainee awaiting proceedings to commit him
as a sexually violent predator was entitled to non-punitive conditions of
confinement under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Summary
judgment for correctional officials in his lawsuit challenging his conditions
of confinement was therefore improper. Jones v. Blanas, No. 02-17148, 2004 U.S.
App. Lexis 26814 (9th Cir. 2004). [2005 JB Feb]
U.S. Supreme Court, in case involving death-row
prisoner's challenge to Alabama state's use of a death penalty procedure
requiring an incision into his arm or leg to access his severely compromised
veins, rules that federal civil rights statute, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 is an
"appropriate" manner to assert an Eighth Amendment claim challenging
confinement conditions in prison and seeking injunctive relief. Nelson v.
Campbell, #03-6821, 124 S. Ct. 2117 (2004).[2004 JB Jul]
Trial court
failed to adequately show that an injunction was required to remedy fire safety
issues at correctional facility. Hadix v. Johnson, No. 03-1334, 2004 U.S. App.
Lexis 8889 (6th Cir. 2004). [2004 JB Jun]
Prisoner's claim that his constitutional rights
to adequate conditions and medical care were being violated in a private prison
in Ohio where he was incarcerated under a contract with the District of
Columbia, and that D.C. officials knew or should have known of this, but failed
to take corrective action was sufficient to state a federal civil rights claim
against the District. Warren v. District of Columbia, No. 02-7120, 353 F.3d 36
(D.C. Cir. 2004). [2004 JB Mar]
Federal court holds county sheriff in contempt
and imposes sanctions for noncompliance with order requiring that all beds at
jail be off the floor and that other conditions at facility, including medical
care, food services, recreational services, cleaning, and security be improved.
Marion County Jail Inmates v. Anderson, 270 F. Supp. 2d 1034 (S.D. Ind. 2003).
[2003 JB Dec]
Jail inmate's lawsuit claiming that the jail had
cells that smelled of urine, poor means of transporting prisoners, bad living
conditions, nurses with "bad attitudes," "unruly and
abusive" guards, and that he was denied adequate medical care was
sufficient to give the defendant jail officials notice of the claims against
them so that they could file an answer and prepare for trial. While some of his
allegations were "generalized," they were neither "vague nor
conclusory." Evans v. Nassau County, 184 F. Supp. 2d 238 (E.D.N.Y. 2002).
[N/R]
Pretrial detainee stated a claim for violation of
his due process rights based on alleged exposure to unsanitary and hazardous
conditions in correctional facility's shower area for a nine month period.
Alleged failure to enforce rules requiring inspections and failure to order
repairs performed were sufficient to show personal involvement of defendant
official for purposes of the prisoner's claim. Curry v. Kerik, No. 00 Civ.
4706, 163 F. Supp. 2d 232 (S.D. New York 2001). [N/R]
277:4 Prisoner with list of over 50 correctional
officials and employees as defendants in his federal civil rights lawsuit
failed to say how any one of them had personally violated his rights, and
failed to show that conditions at the prison had caused him, personally, any
harm, so his lawsuit was properly dismissed. Ellis v. Norris, #97-1390, 179
F.3d 1078 (8th Cir. 1999).
217:8 Jury instructions which allowed award of
damages against prison officials on the basis of "reckless disregard"
of alleged unconstitutional prison conditions were legally defective; appeals
court orders new trial in federal civil rights lawsuit. Clark v. Armontrout, 28
F.3d 71 (8th Cir. 1994).
227:170 Jury instructions on excessive force
which did not include the word "sadistically" did not constitute
plain error requiring reversal of jury award against five correctional
officers. Baker v. Delo, 38 F.3d 1024 (8th Cir. 1994).
[N/R] Federal marshals did not violate any
clearly established rights that inmate had when they contracted to place a
pretrial detainee in local jails and transported him there; various conditions
in local jails did not constitute unconstitutional deprivation of human needs.
Jordan v. Doe, 38 F.3d 1559 (11th Cir. 1994).
Federal appeals court overturns injunction
against conditions in Oregon disciplinary segregation unit and vacates award of
$110,952.50 in attorneys' fee to plaintiff prisoner; rules that "malicious
and sadistic" conduct, rather than "deliberate indifference" was
the proper legal standard for subjective state of mind of prison officials
required to show an Eighth Amendment violation under these circumstances.
LeMaire v. Maass, 12 F.3d 1444 (9th Cir. 1993).
Prisoner was not denied a fair trial on his civil
right claim when the jury was allowed to see him in shackles during trial.
Holloway v. Alexander, 957 F.2d 529 (8th Cir. 1992).
Federal statute authorizing nonconsensual
referral of prisoner lawsuits challenging "conditions of confinement"
to magistrates includes civil rights lawsuits over individual incidents of
unconstitutional conduct, such as alleged excessive use of force, as well as
over ongoing prison conditions. McCarthy v. Bronson, 111 S.Ct. 1737 (1991).
Federal statute authorizing nonconsensual
referral of prisoner lawsuits challenging "conditions of confinement"
to magistrates includes civil rights lawsuits over individual incidents of
unconstitutional conduct, such as alleged excessive use of force, as well as
over ongoing prison conditions. McCarthy v. Bronson, 111 S.Ct. 1737 (1991).
Housing of protective custody inmates and inmates
with mental health problems with punitive segregation inmates violated eighth
amendment. Inmates of Occoquan v. Barry, 717 F.Supp. 854 (D.D.C. 1989).
Alleged denial of "adequate exercise"
during three days in jail did not state constitutional claim. Brown v.
Copeland, 780 S.W.2d 68 (Mo. App. 1989).
Level of inmate-inmate and staff-inmate violence
at institution reached proportions violating eighth amendment. Fisher v.
Koehler, 692 F.Supp. 1519 (S.D.N.Y. 1988).
Important court decision encourages prison
officials to adopt standards by American Correctional Association, the American
Public Health Association, and The Life Safety Code to correct unconstitutional
conditions. Inmates of Occoquan v. Barry, 650 F.Supp. 619 (D.D.C. 1986).
Changes in prison policy after riot were
improper. Walker v. Mintzes, 771 F.2d 920 (6th Cir. 1985).
"Bookmobile" library unconstitutional,
visitation time for males and females doesn't have to be the same, and policy
of forbidding weekend and minors from visiting is unlawful. Morrow v. Harwell,
768 F.2d 619 (5th Cir. 1985).
Court orders jail to hire and train additional
guards. Alberti v. Klevenhagen, 606 F.Supp. 478 (S.D. Tex. 1985).
Court orders corrections in various conditions,
including classification of juveniles to protect against sexual assaults. Balla
v. Idaho State Bd. of Corrections, 595 F.Supp. 1558 (D. Idaho 1984).
Cap ordered after population nearly doubled.
Monmouth Cty. Correctional Inst. Inmates v. Lanzaro, 595 F.Supp. 1417 (D. N.J.
1984).
South Dakota prison conditions violates Eighth
Amendment. Cody v. Hillard, 599 F.Supp. 1025 (D. S.D. 1984).
Co. association denied intervention in civil
rights suit. Bush v. Viterna, 740 F.2d 350 (5th Cir. 1984).
Scheduling of dental appointments, eating time,
library use, and access to counsel upheld. Robbins v. South, 595 F.Supp. 785
(D. Mont. 1984).
Injunctive relief granted for poor conditions of
confinement in segregation, Toussaint v. McCarthy, 597 F.Supp. 1388 (N.D. Cal.
1984).
Court prevented from ordering officials off
adjustment committee. Kendrick v. Bland, 740 F.2d 432 (6th cir. 1984).
Inmate's transfer to cell with water renders his
claim moot. Fulford v. Guissinger, 452 So.2d 1311 (La. App. 1984).
No violation regarding restraining prisoner's
hands when outside tiers; denial of letters between prisoners; denial of
television viewing and newspapers; and limiting phone calls and personal
property. Armstead v. Phelps, 449 So.2d 1049 (La. App. 1984).
Pretrial detainees not entitled to receive
sexually provocative mail; visitation, library rights, and overcrowded
conditions also discussed. Mallery v. Lewis, 678 P.2d 19 (Idaho 1983).
Court orders changes in general jail conditions.
Rutherford v. Pitchess, 710 F.2d 572 (9th Cir. 1983).
Restraint cells for administrative segregation
were inhumane. Lovell v. Brennan, 566 F.Supp. 672 (D. Me. 1983).
No liability for mental anguish of inmate exposed
to fellow inmate's tuberculosis. Sypert v. U.S., 559 F.Supp. 546 (D.D.C. 1983).
Numerous conditions at county jail violated
constitutional standards sanitation, safety, medical care, exercise, discipline
and access to courts. Martino v. Carey, 563 F. Sup. 984 (D. Ore. 1983).
A county resident taxpayer and several prisoners
challenge conditions at county jail. Mendoza v. Tulare Co., 180 Cal.Rptr. 347
(App. 1982).
Co. jail conditions violate constitutional
standards. Hickson v. Kellison, 296 S.E.2d 855 (W. Va. 1982).
Several Tennessee prison conditions in
"totality" violated constitutional rights of inmates and amounted to
cruel and unusual punishment. Grubbs v. Bradley, 552 F.Supp. 1052 (M.D. Tenn.
1982).
Portion of consent decree requiring mess hall
construction withdrawn; jail officials permitted to continue serving meals in
tiers. Merriweather v. Sherwood, 518 F.Supp. 355 (S.D. N.Y. 1981).
Utah Supreme Court dismisses suit against guard
alleging offer to provide controlled substances in exchange for sex act. Stack
v. Martinez, 639 P.2d 154 (Utah 1981).
Dismissal of former jail inmate's pro se
complaint reversed; court allows plaintiff to amend complaint challenging jail
conditions even though he was no longer a resident at that facility. Weaver v.
Wilcox, 650 F.2d 22 (3rd Cir. 1981).
Massachusetts jail ordered to comply with public
health regulations. Attorney General v. Sheriff of Worcester Cty., 413 N.E.2d
722 (Mass. 1980).
Federal court finds that health care system and
environmental conditions at Illinois prison violated inmates' constitutional
rights; court orders officials to comply with minimum constitutional levels of
care. Lightfoot v. Walker, 486 F.Supp. 504 (N.D. Ill. 1980).
New York District court orders trial on
prisoner's claim that conditions of his temporary confinement violated his
constitutional rights. Leon v. Harris, 489 F.Supp. 221 (S.D. N.Y. 1980).
New Adams Co., Mississippi jail given federal
court approval; inmates suit dismissed. Green v. Ferrell, 500 F.Supp. 870 (S.D.
Miss. 1980). Attica special housing inmates allowed to proceed on certain
alleged constitutional claims; class action denied. Griffin v. Smith, 493
F.Supp. 129 (W.D. N.Y. 1980).
Class action suit by inmates in Arkansas jail is
partially successful in challenging conditions of confinements. Campbell v.
Cauthron, 623 F.2d 503 (8th Cir. 1980).
Kansas statute of limitations cannot expire while
prisoner is incarcerated; attempt to recover for cruel and unusual punishment
fails on the merits. Brown v. Bigger, 622 F.2d 1025 (10th Cir. 1980).
Alabama District Court finds serious violations
of inmate's rights at a county jail. Nicholson v. Choctaw Co., 498 F.Supp. 295
(S.D. Ala. 1980).
Prisoner's civil rights action challenging
conditions of his confinement dismissed by Pennsylvania District court. Tunnell
v. Robinson, 486 F.Supp. 1265 (1980).
Georgia Supreme Court rules that prison
construction cannot be enjoined. Evans v. Just Open Government, 251 S.E.2d 546
(Ga. 1979).
Inmate barred from bringing suit on issues
already the subject of class action; release from prison improper remedy under
civil rights act. Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890 (9th Cir. 1979).
For earlier discussions see: Nadeau v. Helgemoe,
561 F.2d 411 (1st Cir. 1977); Suits v. Lynch, 437 F.Supp. 38 (D. Kan. 1977);
James v. Wallace, 406 F.Supp. 318 (M.D. Ala. 1976); Rodriguez v. Jiminez, 409
F.Supp. 582 (D. Puerto Rico 1976); Hamilton v. Schiro, 338 F.Supp. 1016 (E.D.
La. 1970).
An inmate claimed that the warden of
the facility where he was incarcerated violated the Eighth Amendment by failing
to adequately address the infestation of vermin, insects, and birds in his
cell. He alleged that the prison only cleaned "infrequently," and
failed to repair either broken windows or holes in the walls. The inmate, who
suffers from asthma, asserted that he had not had an attack for seven years
before arriving at this prison. A federal appeals court overturned summary
judgment for the warden, ruling that these individual claims were prematurely
dismissed, and that on remand the trial court could determine how to coordinate
the case with a pending class action raising similar allegations. There were
triable issues of fact for a jury, which should determine the degree of both
physical and psychological harm the plaintiff suffered because of the alleged
conditions. Gray v. Hardy, #13-3413, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 11575 (7th Cir.).
A pretrial detainee, who was an Army veteran, was
enrolled in a special veterans' program. He worked in the jail laundry and
lived in a special veterans' wing, apart from the general population. He sued,
claiming that he was paid $3 a day but should have been paid the federal
minimum wage, and that he was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, given
insufficient food, was subjected to rodents and insects, had to drink filthy
water, lacked outdoor recreation, and had to stand in a "hot, smelly
room" for several hours each day. A trial court held that the plaintiff
had no constitutional right to be paid at all for his work in jail, much less
to be paid minimum wage. Other conditions of confinement claims were dismissed
without prejudice for deficiencies in pleading. A federal appeals court
reversed the dismissal of the inadequate food and contaminated water claims,
but otherwise affirmed. Smith v. Dart, #14-1169, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 17003
(7th Cir.).
A federal judge has denied a county's motion to
dismiss a federal civil rights lawsuit by a pretrial detainee at its jail
seeking damages for injuries he suffered when a rat allegedly came out of a
hole in his mattress and bit his penis, causing him sexual dysfunction and
emotional distress. The plaintiff argued that the county acted with
"deliberate indifference to his health and safety in failing to adequately
protect him from rodents." There were allegedly eleven prisoner complaints
about rodents in the two years prior to the incident, as well as 50 prisoners
signing a petition requesting action against the presence of rodents, and the
plaintiff claimed that adequate corrective measures were not taken. The trial
judge agreed that the allegations were sufficient to survive summary judgment.
Solomon v. Nassau County, #08-CV-703, U.S. Dist. Ct. (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2011).
A prisoner established the objective component of
an Eighth Amendment claim by alleging that his cell was infested with thousands
of fire ants and that he was bitten by them over 200 times, suffering sizzling
pain, burning, pus-filled blisters, and swollen appendages. The defendants were
also properly denied qualified immunity, as he had alleged facts from which it
could reasonably be concluded that they acted with deliberate indifference to
these conditions, failing to transfer him to a new cell or to provide him with
ant killing insecticide even after he was treated for the bites. Benshoof v.
Layton, #09-6044, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 23650 (Unpub. 10th Cir.).
Court rejects HIV-positive detainee's claims that
his conditions of confinement violated his rights and that the denial of his
requests to be transferred from an old to a new building in the facility
constituted deliberate indifference to those conditions. While the detainee
claimed that his cell in an older building was hot, had a foul odor, and had
bugs and paint chips, a number of reasons were set forth for the denial of the
transfer request, including his failure to participate in sex-offender
treatment, his HIV-positive status, and his past sexual interactions with other
prisoners. The court ruled that the transfer requests were properly denied, and
also that the conditions of the detainee's confinement could not reasonably be
found to be serious enough to establish an Eighth Amendment violation. Sain v.
Wood, No. 06-3919, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 330 (7th Cir.).
County jail inmate's claim that he was forced to
sleep on a mattress on the floor in a cold cell for six days that was regularly
sprayed with insecticides was not sufficiently serious to state a claim for a
violation of his constitutional rights. Wells v. Jefferson County Sheriff
Department, #01-3575, 35 Fed. Appx. 142 (6th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
Prisoner failed to show unconstitutional county
jail conditions by alleging that his single blanket was inadequate to keep him
warm as he slept on a mattress on the floor and that cockroaches climbed on him
while he slept. Wells v. Jefferson County Sheriff Department, No. C2-00-0077,
159 F. Supp. 2d 1002 (S.D. Ohio 2001). [N/R]
Federal court should not have granted summary
judgment to prison officials on inmate's suit claiming "subhuman
conditions" of confinement, given inmate's detailed affidavit alleging the
presence of filth, rodents, inadequate heating, undrinkable water containing
black worms that turned into small black flies, etc. Jackson v. Duckworth, 955
F.2d 21 (7th Cir. 1992).
Prisoner stated constitutional claim by alleging
he was placed in cell with no hot water, no ventilation, and a mattress
infested with bugs, as well as punitive solitary confinement for no stated reason.
Williams v. White, 897 F.2d 942 (8th cir. 1990).
Insects in food not grounds for liability.
Dannenman v. Schoemehl, 601 F.Supp. 1017 (E.D. Mo. 1985).
Cleaning Supplies, soap, denial of toothbrush or toothpaste
An
Illinois prisoner claimed that nearly two dozen prison employees both
deliberately ignored his medical needs and retaliated against him because he
filed grievances and lawsuits. He claimed that he received inadequate supplies
of toothpaste, laundry detergent, and mailing supplies at three different
prisons over a period of six years. Screening the complaint, the trial court
narrowed the number of defendants and then granted summary judgment for the
defendants who remained. “This lawsuit is not the first one,” the appeals court
commented in upholding the result, in which the prisoner “has tossed into a
single complaint a mishmash of unrelated allegations against unrelated
defendants.” He had engaged in “nearly constant” litigation during 2009 and
2010. Owens v. Godinez, #15-3892, 860 F.3d 434 (7th Cir. 2017).
A prisoner who served almost 28 months in
a six-man cell claimed that conditions there constituted cruel and unusual
punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. His claims were plausible that
he was deprived of the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities and
subjected him to unreasonable health and safety risks because of inadequate
space and ventilation, stifling heat in summer and freezing cold in winter,
unsanitary conditions, including urine and feces on the floor, too narrow a
mattress, insufficient cleaning supplies, and noisy crowded conditions making
sleep difficult and putting him at constant risk of violence from his
cellmates. Claims against some defendants were rejected, but allowed to proceed
against others, with qualified immunity issues to be resolved after further
facts were determined. Walker v. Schult, #12-1806, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 10397
(2nd Cir.).
A pretrial detainee claimed that his conditions
of confinement at a county jail were unconstitutional, and that the sheriff was
deliberately indifferent to his medical needs for an injury to his leg. The
conditions complained of included poor sanitation and hygiene alongside lack of
heat and bedding, blocked ventilation, overcrowding, and inadequate recreation.
These conditions, he argued, together with a failure to provide detainees with
a way to clean themselves with running water or cleaning supplies, stated a
claim for relief. He said that three doctors told him that his leg infection
was the result of the unsanitary conditions. His claim for medical indifference
was rejected, since he received ongoing observation, medication, and medical
attention, but the federal appeals court ordered further proceedings on his
unconstitutional conditions of confinement claim. Budd v. Motley, #11-3425,
2013 U.S. App. Lexis 6557 (7th Cir.).
A prisoner complained that, for three days,
liquid seeped through vent holes in the cinder block wall of his cell onto the
floor. He failed to show that this condition violated his constitutional
rights, as the jail administrator responded promptly to his complaints, the
incident did not last long, and cleaning materials were made available.
Honeycutt v. Ringold, #10-6077, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 20378 (Unpub. 10th Cir.).
A pretrial detainee failed to show that his
supposedly adverse reaction to HDQ Neutral, a cleaning product used at the
county jail, involved a serious medical need for purposes of trying to
establish that the defendants acted with deliberate indifference in violation
of his constitutional rights. The prisoner, who was taking medication for
asthma, alleged that exposure to the cleaning product caused him to "cough
up blood." The record indicated that a reasonable jury could find that the
prisoner did not show that a physician or other medical personnel had diagnosed
him with a medical condition that required treatment while he was detained. An
examination of the prisoner revealed only some nasal drainage, and otherwise
found him in normal condition, with an instruction that he should move away
from where the cleaning products were being used. While one doctor later stated
an opinion that chemicals used at the jail caused medical problems for the
prisoner, a competing expert rejected the diagnosis of asthma, and found no
evidence of pulmonary fibrosis in a CT scan. The jury thus reasonably
determined that the prisoner failed to establish a serious medical need while
incarcerated. Christian v. Wagner, #09-2417, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 21609(8th
Cir.).
A prisoner's federal civil rights lawsuit over
prison conditions should not have been dismissed as he adequately alleged both
the objective and subjective components of an Eighth Amendment violation in
asserting that he was completely denied a number of hygiene supplies and lacked
toothpaste, in particular, for 337 days, in addition to which the defendants
were allegedly aware of this and did not act to remedy the problem. Flanory v.
Bonn, #09-1161, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 9267 (6th Cir.).
Prison officials promptly remedied inmate's
complaints about a soiled mattress and his placement in a cell with a
transparent plastic shield. His other complaints about cell conditions,
including denying him his chosen cleaning materials, one occasion on which the
cell block flooded, and the passing to him of a toilet brush through the same
cell door slot used to pass wrapped food did not amount to constitutional
violations, but were instead minor inconveniences that were part of prison
life. Wesolowski v. Kamas, 03-CV-6405, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 99263 (W.D.N.Y.).
When none of the individual prison conditions an
inmate complained of involved the deprivation of a human need, the court need
not consider whether these conditions "in combination" violated his
constitutional rights. Lucero v. Mesa County Sheriff's Dept., No. 08-1068, 2008
U.S. App. Lexis 24630 (Unpub. 10th Cir.).
Federal appeals court overturns dismissal of
prisoner's lawsuit alleging that prison practices and regulations resulted,
after he paid costs for constitutionally protected litigation, in the inmate
being without the funds to buy needed hygiene products, and that the defendants
acted with deliberate indifference in failing to provide him with such hygiene
products for a prolonged period of time. The appeals court rejected that trial
court's belief that the issue simply amounted to the prisoner's own decision as
how to spend his limited funds. Preliminary injunctive relief, however, was
denied. Whitington v. Ortiz, No. 07-1425, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 651 (Unpub. 10th
Cir.).
Prisoner's allegation that guards, for two weeks,
without any explanation, rejected his requests for "basic" cleaning
supplies, despite cell conditions that included human waste, filth, and a heavy
infestation of roaches, stated a viable Eighth Amendment claim, as did his
contention that he was not provided with more than a thin blanket when his
unheated cell was exposed to "frigid" air in November. A claim for
deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, however, was not viable,
since the symptoms he described amounted to a "common cold," which
did not indicate a serious medical need. Wheeler v. Walker, No. 08-1898, 2008
U.S. App. Lexis 25434 (Unpub. 7th Cir.).
Pretrial detainee failed to show that county
sheriff was deliberately indifferent to detention officers' alleged refusal to
supply him with disinfectants or cleaning supplies to remove feces from his
toilet and the floor of his cell. In fact, he did not even claim that the
sheriff was aware of these actions. Galloway v. Whetsel, No. 03-6239, 124 Fed.
Appx. 617 (10th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Pre-trial detainee's claim that he was deprived
of a toothbrush, clean clothes, and shower shoes when he arrived at a county
jail, and was forced to sleep on the floor as the third person in a two-person
cell, was insufficient to show a violation of his constitutional rights.
Calhoun v. Thomas, No. 2:02cv1157, 360 F. Supp. 2d 1264 (M.D. Ala. 2005). [N/R]
Pre-trial detainees who asserted that they were
forced to breathe air filled with fiberglass while in county jail adequately
stated a claim for deliberate indifference to their health or safety against
the county sheriff. Denial of toothpaste for an extended period of time could
also violate a detainee's rights because of the possible consequences of poor
dental hygiene. Board v. Farnham, No. 03-2628, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 101 (7th
Cir. 2005). [2005 JB Feb]
An eight-day deprivation of hygiene products was
not serious enough to constitute a violation of the Eighth Amendment
prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Dopp v. W. Dist. of Okla.,
#04-6065, 105 Fed. Appx. 259 (10th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Prison officials' actions in depriving prisoner
of all clothing, toiletries and property in his cell except for one pair of undershorts
after he engaged in at least sixteen disciplinary violations, many involving
throwing of drinks, soup, spit, urine or feces at officers near his cell, were
not a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights, but were "proportionally
targeted" at his misconduct. Additionally, any alleged deprivation of
toilet paper was not deliberately indifferent, but negligent and inadvertent,
and at worst, he was allowed one roll of such paper for a nine-day period.
Trammell v. Keane, No. 01-0025, 338 F.3d 155 (2nd Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Prisoner's claim that he was confined for four
nights and five days in a stripped basement intake cell with no personal
hygiene items, no cleaning supplies, and minimal clothing and bedding did not
suffice to show a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights against cruel and
unusual punishment. Estrada v. Kruse, No. 01-1381 38 Fed. Appx. 498 (10th Cir.
2002). [N/R]
Filthy jail cell did not violate rights of either
convicted inmate or pretrial detainee who was his cellmate when they were
furnished with adequate cleaning supplies within twenty-four hours of being
transferred into the cell. Whitnack v. Douglas Co., 16 F 3d 954 (8th Cir.
1994).
Forty-five minutes a week of out of cell
individual exercise did not violate prisoner's Eighth Amendment rights;
prisoner could not complain of "unsanitary" cell when he was
regularly furnished with cleaning supplies but never took the opportunity to
use them to clean his own cell. Wishon v. Gammon, 978 F.2d 446 (8th Cir. 1992).
Failure to supply toilet paper, soap, toothbrush
or toothpaste was not cruel and unusual punishment. Harris v. Fleming, 839 F.2d
1232 (7th Cir. 1988).
Claims alleging denial of deodorant, soap, and
shampoo present no constitional violations and cannot be brought in federal
court; remedy lies in state court. Thomas v. Smith, 559 F.Supp. 223 (W.D. N.Y.
1983).
Clothing, shoes, and protective gear
A
prisoner failed to show that his Eighth Amendment rights were violated by
conditions in isolation, where he was placed for disciplinary reasons. While he
had the "barest" of clothing, there was no indication that this or
the temperature of his cell endangered his health or safety. There was evidence
to show that he received adequate shelter, medical care, and nutrition while in
isolation. Guinn v. Rispoli, #08-4281, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 8566 (Unpub. 3rd
Cir.).
Pre-trial detainee's claim that he was deprived
of a toothbrush, clean clothes, and shower shoes when he arrived at a county
jail, and was forced to sleep on the floor as the third person in a two-person
cell, was insufficient to show a violation of his constitutional rights.
Calhoun v. Thomas, No. 2:02cv1157, 360 F. Supp. 2d 1264 (M.D. Ala. 2005). [N/R]
Texas prisoner's claim that prison officials acted
with deliberate indifference to his health and safety during the winter of
1999-2000 by denying him adequate clothing and shelter was frivolous, based on
a prior federal appeals court decision concerning almost identical claims
against some of the same defendants, and rejecting those claims, Winthrow v.
Heaton, 67 Fed. Appx. 252 (5th Cir. 2003). The prior decision, however,
did not bar his claims concerning a subsequent winter, that of 2000-2001, since
it did not determine that the defendants, some old and some new, "could
not have acted with deliberate indifference at a later date." The
dismissal of claims concerning the winter of 2000-2001 was therefore vacated.
Winthrow v. Garcia, No. 04-40487, 116 Fed. Appx. 524 (5th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Prisoner's complaint about being compelled to
work in cold weather without warm clothing, or in hot, humid weather despite
his high blood pressure did not qualify as a claim of imminent danger of
serious physical harm coming under an exception to the "three strikes"
rule of the Prison Litigation Reform Act barring access to courts as a pauper
following the filing of three or more frivolous lawsuits. Martin v. Shelton,
No. 02-2770, 319 F.3d 1048 (8th Cir. 2003). [2003 JB Jun]
Five-hour barefoot detention in a cell without a
toilet was not a sufficiently serious deprivation to constitute cruel and
unusual punishment or violation of due process rights of pre-trial detainee.
Ledbetter v. City of Topeka, #02-3202, 2003 U.S. App. Lexis 2134 (10th Cir.).
[2003 JB Mar.]
Admission of hearsay evidence that psychiatrist
diagnosed plaintiff prisoner as faking the mental trauma he claimed to have
sustained as a result of his solitary confinement without clothing or sustained
access to running water was improper. Prisoner was therefore entitled to a new
trial in his civil rights lawsuit alleging a violation of his Eighth Amendment
rights. Mahone v. Lehman, #02-35622, 347 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Prison officials' actions in depriving prisoner
of all clothing, toiletries and property in his cell except for one pair of
undershorts after he engaged in at least sixteen disciplinary violations, many
involving throwing of drinks, soup, spit, urine or feces at officers near his
cell, were not a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights, but were
"proportionally targeted" at his misconduct. Additionally, any
alleged deprivation of toilet paper was not deliberately indifferent, but
negligent and inadvertent, and at worst, he was allowed one roll of such paper
for a nine-day period. Trammell v. Keane, No. 01-0025, 338 F.3d 155 (2nd Cir.
2003). [N/R]
Prisoner's claim that he was confined for four
nights and five days in a stripped basement intake cell with no personal
hygiene items, no cleaning supplies, and minimal clothing and bedding did not
suffice to show a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights against cruel and
unusual punishment. Estrada v. Kruse, No. 01-1381 38 Fed. Appx. 498 (10th Cir.
2002). [N/R]
299:169 Prisoner who was allegedly exposed to raw
sewage in the course of her work assignment failed to show that correctional
officials acted with deliberate indifference; even if she was correct that
protective clothing issued was inadequate, nothing showed that defendants knew
that before she complained. Shannon v. Graves, No. 00- 3029, 257 F.3d 1164
(10th Cir. 2001).
279:38 Keeping prisoners outdoors overnight in
cold weather with no blankets or jackets, no heat, and no sanitary arrangements
for toilets, etc. while telling them they had to stay within a small space or
be shot for attempting to escape constituted cruel and unusual punishment;
defendant warden and assistant warden were not entitled to qualified immunity
for ordering a "sleep-out" in these conditions. Palmer v. Johnson,
No. 98-50595, 193 F.3d 346 (5th Cir. 1999).
245:71 Prisoner who weighed 330 pounds did not
suffer cruel and unusual punishment when prison was unable to furnish him with
two pairs of pants which fit him, and as a result he sometimes had to wear
ill-fitting, dirty, or torn clothing. Young v. Berks Co. Prison, 940 F.Supp.
121 (E.D. Pa. 1996).
257:72 Appeals court orders further proceedings
on question of whether extreme cold in prisoner's cell was an Eighth Amendment
violation and whether prison clothing and bedding was adequate to protect him
against the temperature which caused ice to form on the walls of his cell.
Dixon v. Godinez, 114 F.3d 640 (7th Cir. 1997).
Officer liable for $75 each to four prisoners he
forced to exercise outside without gloves or hats in subfreezing weather.
Gordon .v Faber, 973 F.2d 686 (8th Cir. 1992).
Confining inmate in outdoor recreation area, wet
and naked, for less than two hours while restoring order in cell unit, did not
constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Friends v. Moore, 776 F.Supp. 1382
(E.D. Mo. 1991).
Use of in-cell restraints, restraints in showers,
controlled feeding status, confiscation of clothing, and lack of out-of-cell
exercise opportunity for inmate in disciplinary segregation was cruel and
unusual punishment. LeMaire v. Maass, 745 F.Supp. 623 (D. Or. 1990).
Kansas Supreme Court rules that denial of light
bulb and change of clothes to pretrial detainee for two-week span did not
constitute cruel and unusual punishment. State v. Rouse, 629 P.2d 167 (Kan.
1981).
Dampness
A
prisoner who served almost 28 months in a six-man cell claimed that conditions
there constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth
Amendment. His claims were plausible that he was deprived of the minimal civilized
measure of life's necessities and subjected him to unreasonable health and
safety risks because of inadequate space and ventilation, stifling heat in
summer and freezing cold in winter, unsanitary conditions, including urine and
feces on the floor, too narrow a mattress, insufficient cleaning supplies, and
noisy crowded conditions making sleep difficult and putting him at constant
risk of violence from his cellmates. Claims against some defendants were
rejected, but allowed to proceed against others, with qualified immunity issues
to be resolved after further facts were determined. Walker v. Schult, #12-1806,
2013 U.S. App. Lexis 10397 (2nd Cir.).
A prisoner complained that, for three days,
liquid seeped through vent holes in the cinder block wall of his cell onto the
floor. He failed to show that this condition violated his constitutional
rights, as the jail administrator responded promptly to his complaints, the
incident did not last long, and cleaning materials were made available.
Honeycutt v. Ringold, #10-6077, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 20378 (Unpub. 10th Cir.).
Prison officials promptly remedied inmate's
complaints about a soiled mattress and his placement in a cell with a
transparent plastic shield. His other complaints about cell conditions,
including denying him his chosen cleaning materials, one occasion on which the
cell block flooded, and the passing to him of a toilet brush through the same
cell door slot used to pass wrapped food did not amount to constitutional
violations, but were instead minor inconveniences that were part of prison
life. Wesolowski v. Kamas, 03-CV-6405, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 99263 (W.D.N.Y.).
Pre-trial detainee presented a viable claim
against two officers for deliberate indifference to inadequate shelter in his
cell, which was allegedly cold and wet, with rain or snow leaking from the
ceiling onto the mattress on the floor where he slept. Spencer v. Bouchard, No.
05-2562, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 13846 (6th Cir.). [2006 JB Jul]
Exposure to Hazards
299:169
Prisoner who was allegedly exposed to raw sewage in the course of her work
assignment failed to show that correctional officials acted with deliberate
indifference; even if she was correct that protective clothing issued was
inadequate, nothing showed that defendants knew that before she complained.
Shannon v. Graves, No. 00- 3029, 257 F.3d 1164 (10th Cir. 2001).
285:134 Owners and operators of gas pipeline near
Texas correctional facility could not be sued for alleged Eighth Amendment
violation based on leak which subjected 1,000 prisoners and correctional
employees to exposure to gas when they were unable to be evacuated; defendants
were not acting under color of law and did not act with deliberate indifference
to plaintiffs' constitutional rights. Abarca v. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc., 75 F.
Supp. 2d 566 (E.D. Tex. 1999).
Fire
Safety
Allegation
that Indiana prison cells in special detention unit were "very small"
and that prisoners were denied out of cell recreation, along with allegations
that the cells were "filthy," totally lacked sanitation, and had
inadequate ventilation and air circulation systems, along with inadequate fire
safety and smoke detection systems stated a possible claim for violation of the
Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Boyd v. Anderson,
265 F. Supp. 2d 952 (N.D. Ind. 2003). [N/R]
Various conditions, including lighting, fire
prevention, and safety ordered corrected. Hoptowit v. Spellman, 753 F.2d 779
(9th Cir. 1985).
Food utensils, food handling, serving containers, and other feeding conditions
A
pretrial detainee, who was an Army veteran, was enrolled in a special veterans'
program. He worked in the jail laundry and lived in a special veterans' wing,
apart from the general population. He sued, claiming that he was paid $3 a day
but should have been paid the federal minimum wage, and that he was subjected
to cruel and unusual punishment, given insufficient food, was subjected to
rodents and insects, had to drink filthy water, lacked outdoor recreation, and
had to stand in a "hot, smelly room" for several hours each day. A
trial court held that the plaintiff had no constitutional right to be paid at
all for his work in jail, much less to be paid minimum wage. Other conditions
of confinement claims were dismissed without prejudice for deficiencies in
pleading. A federal appeals court reversed the dismissal of the inadequate food
and contaminated water claims, but otherwise affirmed. Smith v. Dart, #14-1169,
2015 U.S. App. Lexis 17003 (7th Cir.).
A prisoner's assertion that he and fellow
prisoners did not "enjoy" the food provided did not suffice for a
claim of denial of a basic human need in violation of the Eighth Amendment. His
various complaints about prison heating, air conditioning, small showers, dirty
mops, and repeated playing of TV shows also failed to show unconstitutional
conditions. Muniz v. Richardson, #09-2229, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 6703 (Unpub.
10th Cir.).
289:6 The fact that an INS detainee awaiting
deportation had fewer privileges while held at a parish jail than he would have
had if kept in a federal detention center did not violate his right to equal
protection; court orders further proceedings on detainee's claims
concerning inadequate food, exercise and sanitation in the jail.
Oladipupo v. Austin, 104 F. Supp. 2d 643 (W.D. La. 2000) and Oladipupo v.
Austin, 104 F. Supp. 2d 654 (W.D. La. 2000).
Strip status, type of food provided, loss of
exercise privileges, and use of in-cell restraints in disciplinary segregation
unit did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. LeMaire v. Maass, 2 F.3d
851 (9th Cir. 1993).
Alleged intentional deprivation of food stated a
claim for cruel and unusual punishment. Graves v. Dept. of Corr. Employees, 827
S.W.2d 47 (Tex. App. 1992).
Use of in-cell restraints, restraints in showers,
controlled feeding status, confiscation of clothing, and lack of out-of-cell
exercise opportunity for inmate in disciplinary segregation was cruel and
unusual punishment. LeMaire v. Maass, 745 F.Supp. 623 (D. Or. 1990).
Serving of food in styrofoam containers did not
show that food was "contaminated." Malik v. Berlinland, 551 N.Y.S.2d
421 (A.D. 1990).
Alleged unsanitary food handling and polluted
water states eighth amendment violation. Jackson v. State of Arizona, 885 F.2d
639 (9th Cir. 1989).
Use of "food loaf" as punishment did
not require prior hearing; but "food loaf" punishment cannot continue
after charges are dismissed. U.S. v. State of Michigan, 680 F.Supp. 270 (W.D.
Mich. 1988).
Inmates furnished peanut butter sandwiches as
sole nourishment during lockdown suffered no denial of constitutional rights.
Gabel v. Estelle, 677 F.Supp. 514 (S.D. Tex. 1987).
Pretrial detainee's suit dismissed; occasional
food contamination not actionable. Hamm v. DeKalb Co., 774 F.2d 1567 (11th Cir.
1986).
Replacing dormitories with cubicles possibly
mitigated spreading of disease, conflict, and privacy problems; other
conditions involving toilet facilities, food preparation, and recreation not in
violation. Miles v. Bell, 621 F.Supp. 51 (D.C. Conn. 1985).
Insects in food not grounds for liability.
Dannenman v. Schoemehl, 601 F.Supp. 1017 (E.D. Mo. 1985).
General complaint against food dismissed. Chase
v. Quick, 596 F.Supp. 33 (D.R.I. 1984).
Appeals court dismisses suit by inmates alleging
that prison failed to warn them about adverse effects of saccharin. Covington
v. Allsbrook, 636 F.2d 63 (4th Cir. 1980).
Illumination and access to sunlight
A
prisoner claimed that having continuous 24-hour a day light in his cell was a
violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. A federal appeals court found that
there were material issues of fact as to how bright the light in the cell was,
what effect it had on him, and whether the defendants were deliberately
indifferent to that effect. Assuming that the defendants could defeat the
Eighth Amendment claim by showing a legitimate penological interest in the
constant cell illumination, so far they had failed to do so. Grenning v. Miller-Stout,
#11-35579, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 865 (9th Cir.).
A California prisoner claimed that night light in
his cell caused him insomnia in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights.
Rejecting this claim, a federal appeals court noted that there was undisputed
medical evidence that the amount of illumination coming from the night light in
the cell would not cause insomnia. Further, there were medical records
indicating that the plaintiff "had complained of insomnia, stress, and
depression before the new night light policy was implemented, and continued to
complain of insomnia and other symptoms after he was transferred to a prison
that did not have night lights." Walker v. Woodford, #08-56676, 2010 U.S.
App. Lexis 18210 (Unpub. 9th Cir.).
Prisoner failed to present a viable due process claim
concerning his initial placement in administrative segregation when he admitted
that he was provided with notice of the facts on which his placement there was
based, as well as an opportunity to be heard. The prisoner also failed to
present a viable claim as to whether the periodic reviews of his continued
placement there were adequate, or concerning the adequacy of lighting in his
cell, the adequacy of the exercise provided to him, or the adequacy of the
calories provided. A claim concerning his medical care was also rejected.
Hampton v. Ryan, No. 06-17388, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 16770 (Unpub. 9th Cir.).
Constant illumination in prisoner's cell in a
security housing unit was not cruel and unusual punishment. While the prisoner
claimed that it prevented him from sleeping, it was merely a single low-watt
bulb which even the plaintiff agreed was not bright enough to read or write by.
Wills v. Terhune, No. 1:CVF986052, 404 F. Supp. 2d 1226 (E.D. Cal. 2005). [N/R]
Inmate's allegation that his cell was constantly
illumination could constitute a valid Eighth Amendment claim, depending on how
bright the light was. Constant illuminate may be a civil rights violation if it
"causes sleep deprivation or leads to other serious physical or mental
health problems." King v. Frank, No. 04-C-338, 328 F. Supp. 2d 940 (W.D.
Wis. 2004). See also a prior unpublished decision, Pozo v. Hompe, 02-C-12-C,
2003 WL 23185882 (W.D. Wis. 2003), holding that the illumination of a cell by a
5-watt bulb did not rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation. [N/R]
Prison's policy of constant illumination of cell
in administrative segregation unit was reasonably related to a legitimate
interest in guard security, so that prisoner could not pursue his claim that it
violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment because it deprived him of
sleep. Chavarria v. Stacks, No. 03-40977, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 14945 (5th
Cir.). [2004 JB Sep]
277:3 Prisoner's assertion that he was deprived
of direct sunlight for over one hundred days did not state a claim for cruel
and unusual punishment. Richard v. Reed, 49 F. Supp. 2d 485 (E.D.Va. 1999).
261:135 Constant lighting in disciplinary
detention cells, preventing normal sleep, might be 8th Amendment violation;
court finds factual issue as to whether prison staff needs to see into cells 24
hours a day or whether light switch, allowing them to see in when they must,
would be sufficient. Shepherd v. Ault, 982 F.Supp. 643 (N.D. Iowa 1997).
Various conditions, including lighting, fire
prevention, and safety ordered corrected. Hoptowit v. Spellman, 753 F.2d 779
(9th Cir. 1985).
Kansas Supreme Court rules that denial of light
bulb and change of clothes to pretrial detainee for two-week span did not constitute
cruel and unusual punishment. State v. Rouse, 629 P.2d 167 (Kan. 1981).
Noise
Prisoner's
allegations of "small and noisy" cell, limited visitation, and
disparate restrictions on his leaving the cell did not amount to an Eighth
Amendment or due process violation. Ruark v. Solano, 928 F.2d 947 (10th Cir.
1991).
The levels of noise MHD at all times except late
night or early morning are unbearably high. Long-term exposure to such noise
can cause impairment of hearing, and even short exposure may increase tension
and adversely affect mental health. Rhem v. Malcolm, 371 F.Supp. 594 (S.D.
N.Y., 1974).
Possessions
Prison
officials' actions in depriving prisoner of all clothing, toiletries and
property in his cell except for one pair of undershorts after he engaged in at
least sixteen disciplinary violations, many involving throwing of drinks, soup,
spit, urine or feces at officers near his cell, were not a violation of his
Eighth Amendment rights, but were "proportionally targeted" at his misconduct.
Additionally, any alleged deprivation of toilet paper was not deliberately
indifferent, but negligent and inadvertent, and at worst, he was allowed one
roll of such paper for a nine-day period. Trammell v. Keane, No. 01-0025, 338
F.3d 155 (2nd Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Rules prohibiting special housing unit inmates
from possessing more than ten family photos, watch or hair brush did not
violate prisoner rights. Malik v. Coughlin, 550 N.Y.S.2d 219 (A.D. 1990).
A
pretrial detainee claimed that the sheriff violated his substantive due process
rights by confining him in an unsanitary and overcrowded cell. A federal
appeals court found that the detainee's claim that he was temporarily forced to
sleep on a mattress on the floor near a toilet was insufficient to clearly show
that his conditions of confinement were unconstitutional. The sheriff was
therefore entitled to qualified immunity. Jacoby v. Baldwin County, #14-12932,
2016 U.S. App. Lexis 15929, 26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 726 (11th Cir.).
A prisoner who served almost 28 months in a six-man
cell claimed that conditions there constituted cruel and unusual punishment in
violation of the Eighth Amendment. His claims were plausible that he was
deprived of the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities and subjected
him to unreasonable health and safety risks because of inadequate space and
ventilation, stifling heat in summer and freezing cold in winter, unsanitary
conditions, including urine and feces on the floor, too narrow a mattress,
insufficient cleaning supplies, and noisy crowded conditions making sleep
difficult and putting him at constant risk of violence from his cellmates.
Claims against some defendants were rejected, but allowed to proceed against
others, with qualified immunity issues to be resolved after further facts were
determined. Walker v. Schult, #12-1806, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 10397 (2nd Cir.).
A pretrial detainee claimed that his conditions
of confinement at a county jail were unconstitutional, and that the sheriff was
deliberately indifferent to his medical needs for an injury to his leg. The
conditions complained of included poor sanitation and hygiene alongside lack of
heat and bedding, blocked ventilation, overcrowding, and inadequate recreation.
These conditions, he argued, together with a failure to provide detainees with
a way to clean themselves with running water or cleaning supplies, stated a
claim for relief. He said that three doctors told him that his leg infection
was the result of the unsanitary conditions. His claim for medical indifference
was rejected, since he received ongoing observation, medication, and medical
attention, but the federal appeals court ordered further proceedings on his
unconstitutional conditions of confinement claim. Budd v. Motley, #11-3425,
2013 U.S. App. Lexis 6557 (7th Cir.).
A schizophrenic man arrested for an attempted
bank robbery often refused to take his medication, bathe or eat while in a
county jail. He was transported back and forth between a number of mental
health facilities and the jail on a number of occasions. While at the jail
pending a transfer to a state psychiatric institution, he died from excessively
drinking water ("psychogenic polydipsia."). While his estate could pursue
claims concerning the sanitary condition of his cell (despite the fact that he
may have helped cause the conditions, based on his mental incompetence, there
was no basis that any of the defendants were liable for his death, absent any
evidence that they were on notice that he might compulsively engage in water
drinking to the extent that it would put his life in danger. Estate of Rice v.
Correctional Medical Services, #09–2804, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 5728
(7th Cir.),
Summary judgment was properly entered against a
prisoner in his lawsuit over his conditions of confinement. While there were
indeed feces on the wall of his cell, the plaintiff prisoner was the one who
put it there, and correctional employees took necessary measures to see to it
that both the prisoner and his cell were cleaned after the mess was created.
There was no evidence that the prisoner was denied any of life's basic
necessities. Banks v. Mozingo, #10-2259, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 7899 (Unpub. 3rd
Cir.).
A prisoner's assertion that he and fellow
prisoners did not "enjoy" the food provided did not suffice for a
claim of denial of a basic human need in violation of the Eighth Amendment. His
various complaints about prison heating, air conditioning, small showers, dirty
mops, and repeated playing of TV shows also failed to show unconstitutional
conditions. Muniz v. Richardson, #09-2229, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 6703 (Unpub.
10th Cir.).
Prison officials promptly remedied inmate's
complaints about a soiled mattress and his placement in a cell with a
transparent plastic shield. His other complaints about cell conditions,
including denying him his chosen cleaning materials, one occasion on which the
cell block flooded, and the passing to him of a toilet brush through the same
cell door slot used to pass wrapped food did not amount to constitutional
violations, but were instead minor inconveniences that were part of prison
life. Wesolowski v. Kamas, 03-CV-6405, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 99263 (W.D.N.Y.).
Prisoner's allegation that guards, for two
weeks, without any explanation, rejected his requests for "basic"
cleaning supplies, despite cell conditions that included human waste, filth,
and a heavy infestation of roaches, stated a viable Eighth Amendment claim, as
did his contention that he was not provided with more than a thin blanket when
his unheated cell was exposed to "frigid" air in November. A claim
for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, however, was not
viable, since the symptoms he described amounted to a "common cold,"
which did not indicate a serious medical need. Wheeler v. Walker, No. 08-1898,
2008 U.S. App. Lexis 25434 (Unpub. 7th Cir.).
A federal court terminated an environmental order
requiring a city to clean and sanitize shower facilities, janitor closets, laundry
areas, toilets, washbasins, and sinks at city jails, and to monitor
temperatures, as well as denying a request by plaintiff pre-trial detainees for
additional orders concerning vermin control and sanitation. The jails were not
now so lacking in sanitation as to violate the due process clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment or to constitute an ongoing violation of detainee rights,
so that continuation of the orders would be improper. The defendants had and
were taking steps to improve jail sanitation. Benjamin v. Horn, 75 Civ. 3073,
2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 78005 (S.D.N.Y.).
Prisoner
failed to show that correctional officials violated the Eighth Amendment in
allegedly failing to repair a leaky roof and prison floors. The prisoner failed
to show that the defendants knew that there was a substantial risk of serious
harm and failed to act reasonably to avoid such harm, resulting in inhumane
conditions of confinement. Gilman v. Woodford, No. 06-16157, 2008 U.S. App.
Lexis 6029 (9th Cir.).
Prisoner
who claimed that he was housed in an unsanitary, dirty administrative
segregation cell for seven days, failed to show that the sheriff was aware of
the dirty condition of the cell when he was placed in it. Additionally, three
or four days after he sent a letter to the sheriff complaining about it, his
cell was cleaned after being inspected and photographed, and the sheriff toured
the area of the prison where he was housed in order to inspect the cells. The
prisoner's own version of events show that the sheriff took reasonable steps to
respond to his complaint. Johnson v. Anderson, No. 07-10095, 2007 U.S. App.
Lexis 26947 (5th Cir.).
Sheriff and deputy were not entitled to qualified
immunity on detainee's claim that he was kept for two days in a jail cell
lacking a bed and which was contaminated with human waste. There were other
cells with beds available, and there was no compelling interest justifying
placing the plaintiff in a cell without a bed. Herbert v. Maxwell, No 05-30929,
2007 U.S. App. Lexis 1160 (5th Cir.). [N/R]
Two prisoners, confined for 24 hours in an
"unsanitary" isolation cell designed for one prisoner in which a
clogged floor drain resulted in feces and urine remaining on the cell floor,
could not recover damages for mental or emotional injuries in the absence of a
prior physical injury. Alexander v. Tippah County, Mississippi, No. 02-61033,
351 F.3d 626 (5th Cir. 2003). [2004 JB Mar]
Allegation that Indiana prison cells in special
detention unit were "very small" and that prisoners were denied out
of cell recreation, along with allegations that the cells were
"filthy," totally lacked sanitation, and had inadequate ventilation
and air circulation systems, along with inadequate fire safety and smoke
detection systems stated a possible claim for violation of the Eighth Amendment
prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Boyd v. Anderson, 265 F. Supp. 2d
952 (N.D. Ind. 2003). [N/R]
Jail inmate's lawsuit claiming that the jail had
cells that smelled of urine, poor means of transporting prisoners, bad living
conditions, nurses with "bad attitudes," "unruly and
abusive" guards, and that he was denied adequate medical care was
sufficient to give the defendant jail officials notice of the claims against
them so that they could file an answer and prepare for trial. While some of his
allegations were "generalized," they were neither "vague nor
conclusory." Evans v. Nassau County, 184 F. Supp. 2d 238 (E.D.N.Y. 2002).
[N/R]
Pretrial detainee stated a claim for violation of
his due process rights based on alleged exposure to unsanitary and hazardous
conditions in correctional facility's shower area for a nine month period.
Alleged failure to enforce rules requiring inspections and failure to order
repairs performed were sufficient to show personal involvement of defendant
official for purposes of the prisoner's claim. Curry v. Kerik, No. 00 Civ.
4706, 163 F. Supp. 2d 232 (S.D. New York 2001). [N/R]
Prisoner failed to show unconstitutional county
jail conditions by alleging that his single blanket was inadequate to keep him
warm as he slept on a mattress on the floor and that cockroaches climbed on him
while he slept. Wells v. Jefferson County Sheriff Department, No. C2-00-0077,
159 F. Supp. 2d 1002 (S.D. Ohio 2001). [N/R]
289:6 The fact that an INS detainee awaiting
deportation had fewer privileges while held at a parish jail than he would have
had if kept in a federal detention center did not violate his right to equal
protection; court orders further proceedings on detainee's claims
concerning inadequate food, exercise and sanitation in the jail.
Oladipupo v. Austin, 104 F. Supp. 2d 643 (W.D. La. 2000) and Oladipupo v.
Austin, 104 F. Supp. 2d 654 (W.D. La. 2000).
Forty-five minutes a week of out of cell
individual exercise did not violate prisoner's Eighth Amendment rights;
prisoner could not complain of "unsanitary" cell when he was
regularly furnished with cleaning supplies but never took the opportunity to
use them to clean his own cell. Wishon v. Gammon, 978 F.2d 446 (8th Cir. 1992).
Prisoner's assertions that he was subjected to a
health hazard from rusty water, bad smelling pipes and exposure to human waste
which backed up through the plumbing stated constitutional claim. Buffington v.
O'Leary, 748 F.Supp. 633 (N.D. Ill. 1990).
Prisoner was subjected to cruel and unusual
punishment when forced to sleep and live in sewage and foul water in his cell;
trial court must determine whether warden was liable for damages or whether
"extraordinary circumstances" prevented remedying conditions. McCord
v. Maggio, 927 F.2d 844 (5th Cir. 1991).
Filthy conditions in prisoner's cell -- including
human wastes -- constituted cruel and unusual punishment. Howard v. Adkison,
887 F.2d 134 (8th Cir. 1989).
Problem of spillage and overflow (even though due
to inmate stopping up of toilets) was unconstitutional violation the leakage
wasn't cleaned up and contaminated beds and cells below the flooded areas.
Hutchings v. Corum, 501 F.Supp. 1276 (W.D. Mo. 1980).
Sanitary Conditions: Showers
An
African-American prisoner at a California-state prisoner sued following a
lockdown imposed on African-American inmates, complaining, among other things,
of injuries he suffered related to shower restrictions, and about the
race-based classification of the lockdown. A federal appeals court found that
the conditions imposed did not violate Eighth Amendment restrictions on cruel
and unusual punishment, for which deliberate indifference had to be shown. That
did not, however, bar an equal protection claim for race discrimination under
the Fourteenth Amendment. The trial court erred, on the equal protection claim,
in allowing the jury to defer generally to officials rather than determining
whether the challenged race-based actions were narrowly tailored. Harrington v.
Scribner, #09-16951, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 7545 (9th Cir.).
A prisoner sued over conditions in a facility,
claiming that a shower floor was unsafe and slippery, that he had fallen three
times and suffered a fractured hip, and that he had received inadequate medical
care for his injuries. Prisoner slip and fall claims, the appeals court held,
almost never serve as the basis for constitutional violations as a matter of
law. Claims against two defendants who allegedly ignored the plaintiff's
complaints and pleas for help, however, should not have been dismissed. The
allegation that a hearing officer ignored the prisoner's complaint about his
back pain during a hearing on an entirely different matter did not state an
Eighth Amendment claim. Coleman v. Sweetin, #12-40012, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis
4644 (5th Cir.).
Prisoner's claim that he was subjected to
"standing water" in a prison shower area resulting in a fall was
insufficient to establish a claim for cruel and unusual conditions of
confinement posing a substantial risk of serious harm to his health or safety.
Despite the fact that prisoner was on crutches, the danger of falling on a
slippery floor was no greater than the daily hazards faced by the general
public. Reynolds v. Powell, #03-4156, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 10838 (10th
Cir.).[2004 JB Jul]
Use of in-cell restraints, restraints in showers,
controlled feeding status, confiscation of clothing, and lack of out-of-cell
exercise opportunity for inmate in disciplinary segregation was cruel and
unusual punishment. LeMaire v. Maass, 745 F.Supp. 623 (D. Or. 1990).
Condition of prison shower rooms did not violate
inmate's constitutional rights. Termunde v. Cook, 786 P.2d 1341 (Utah 1990).
Limiting inmates in segregation unit to one hour
per week for exercise and one shower per week constitutes cruel and unusual
punishment; court applies "standards for adult correctional
institutions" in determining constitutional conditions. Davenport v.
DeRobertis, 653 F. Sup. 649 (N.D. Ill. 1987).
Sanitary Conditions - Toilets and Toilet Paper
A trial
court erred when it granted summary judgment to officers who worked at a
booking facility between certain dates on twenty pretrial detainees’ claims
alleging that conditions of their confinement while awaiting arraignment
violated their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment on the basis that no jury
could have found that nine challenged conditions, considered together or
separately, amounted to an objective constitutional deprivation. Established
standards for evaluating objective deprivations extended to all nine
conditions, including overcrowding and unusable toilets, and each condition had
to be measured by its severity and duration, not the resulting injury. The
conditions also had to be analyzed in combination, at least where one alleged
deprivation had a bearing on another. The trial court did not conduct the
appropriate analysis. Darnell v. City of New York, #15-2870, 849 F.3d 17 (2nd
Cir. 2017).
A former
pretrial detainee claimed that she was subjected to unconstitutional conditions
of confinement at a county detention facility. Specifically, she claimed that
she was forced to take medication without food, which resulted in stomach
problems and rendered the medication ineffective. Such a claim, the appeals
court ruled, required expert testimony as the seriousness of the possible
injury or illness would not be apparent. "Whether a medication is
ineffective if it is given without food is not readily apparent to a lay person."
Since the plaintiff offered no such expert testimony, summary judgment for the
defendants was properly entered on this claim. The plaintiff also challenged
her confinement, at times, in "the green room," which had green tile
on three of the walls and a fourth wall made of glass, lacked any furnishings
or stationary objects, including a traditional toilet, but did have an eight
inch drain in the middle of the floor covered by a grate. The room was used to
observe "people coming down from drugs, violent people or people on
suicide watch." The plaintiff had allegedly engaged in self-destructive
behavior. The appeals court acknowledged that "the absence of a
traditional toilet may deprive an inmate of access to the usual sanitation
measures afforded other inmates who are not at risk of hurting
themselves." Two other cells adjacent to the green room, however, were
equipped with traditional toilet facilities, and inmates confined in the green
room are given access to these traditional toilet facilities upon request. Additionally,
in the event an inmate utilizes the drain to relieve himself/herself, prison
staff members were required to clean the room as soon as it is safe to do so.
Patterson v. County of Washington, #08-3649, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 19496
(Unpub.3rd Cir.).
A prisoner with a history of throwing excrement
was barred from flushing his toilet himself, and prison employees were told to
flush his toilet every two hours. The court rejected the prisoner's claim that
his Eighth Amendment rights were violated when employees allegedly deliberately
failed to flush his toilet on the two-hour schedule. The employees were
entitled to qualified immunity, as there was no prior case law concerning the
issue. Further, the prisoner did not show that he suffered any injury or
medical harm because of the unflushed toilet, or that he came into contact with
the unflushed toilet water. The court also noted that the prisoner did not
argue with the fact that there was a "behavior management problem,"
based on his prior conduct, and that, absent that conduct, there would have
been no need for the restrictions on him flushing the toilet himself. Howard v.
McCray, No. 606-CV-062, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 44194 (S.D. Ga.).
Federal prisoner sufficiently alleged that
certain prison employees violated his Eighth Amendment rights through the
conditions of his confinement to defeat the dismissal of those claims. He
asserted that he was required, while in a special housing unit strip-cell, to
use a trash bag as a toilet and to share it with a mentally unstable cellmate,
and that the cellmates were not allowed to remove the bagged sewage from the
cell. Burnette v. Bureau of Prisons, No. 06-30540, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 28492
(5th Cir.).
Detainee's claim that toilet paper had been
withheld from him was insufficient to state a due process claim under the
Fourteenth Amendment when he merely had been made to wait over one hour for
toilet paper and he presented no evidence concerning how frequently such
incidents occurred. Beltran v. O'Mara, No. 04-cv-071, 405 F. Supp. 2d 140
(D.N.H. 2005). [N/R]
Sheriff and deputy were not entitled to qualified
immunity on detainee's claim that he was kept for two days in a jail cell
lacking a bed and which was contaminated with human waste. There were other cells
with beds available, and there was no compelling interest justifying placing
the plaintiff in a cell without a bed. Herbert v. Maxwell, No 05-30929, 2007
U.S. App. Lexis 1160 (5th Cir.). [N/R]
Being forced to sleep on the floor of a prison
cell, without a mattress, next to a toilet, was not intended as punishment, and
did not violate a pre-trial detainee's due process rights. Brokins v. Williams,
No. CIV. 04-1250, 402 F. Supp. 2d 508 (D. Del. 2005). [N/R]
Pretrial detainee failed to show that county
sheriff was deliberately indifferent to detention officers' alleged refusal to
supply him with disinfectants or cleaning supplies to remove feces from his
toilet and the floor of his cell. In fact, he did not even claim that the
sheriff was aware of these actions. Galloway v. Whetsel, No. 03-6239, 124 Fed.
Appx. 617 (10th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Federal appeals court upholds injunctive orders
requiring the remedying of "filthy" conditions, inadequate mental
health care, inadequate ventilation, and malfunctioning toilets on death row in
Mississippi prison, but rejects a number of other injunctive orders by trial
court, including requirement of a preventative maintenance program, as not
supported by the evidence or improper micro-management. Russell v. Johnson,
#03-60529, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 13890 (5th Cir. 2004). [2004 JB Aug]
Two prisoners, confined for 24 hours in an
"unsanitary" isolation cell designed for one prisoner in which a
clogged floor drain resulted in feces and urine remaining on the cell floor,
could not recover damages for mental or emotional injuries in the absence of a
prior physical injury. Alexander v. Tippah County, Mississippi, No. 02-61033,
351 F.3d 626 (5th Cir. 2003). [2004 JB Mar]
Prison officials' actions in depriving prisoner
of all clothing, toiletries and property in his cell except for one pair of
undershorts after he engaged in at least sixteen disciplinary violations, many
involving throwing of drinks, soup, spit, urine or feces at officers near his
cell, were not a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights, but were
"proportionally targeted" at his misconduct. Additionally, any
alleged deprivation of toilet paper was not deliberately indifferent, but
negligent and inadvertent, and at worst, he was allowed one roll of such paper
for a nine-day period. Trammell v. Keane, No. 01-0025, 338 F.3d 155 (2nd Cir.
2003). [N/R]
Detainee in county jail failed to show that
sheriff and his deputies were deliberately indifferent to threats to his health
and safety due to toilet in his cell leaking both water and sewage when they
supplied him with blankets or towels to absorb water and a repair attempt was
made. Frye v. Pettis County Sheriff Department, #02-1809, 41 Fed. Appx. 906
(8th Cir. 2002). [2002 JB Dec]
279:38 Keeping prisoners outdoors overnight in
cold weather with no blankets or jackets, no heat, and no sanitary arrangements
for toilets, etc. while telling them they had to stay within a small space or
be shot for attempting to escape constituted cruel and unusual punishment;
defendant warden and assistant warden were not entitled to qualified immunity
for ordering a "sleep-out" in these conditions. Palmer v. Johnson,
No. 98-50595, 193 F.3d 346 (5th Cir. 1999).
243:41 Overflowed toilet in prisoner's cell which
was allegedly not cleaned up for four days did not amount to a constitutional
violation for "exposure to raw sewage." Smith v. Copeland, 87 F.3d
265 (8th Cir. 1996).
247:105 Lack of hot water, constantly
"running" toilet, and failure of toilet to properly flush for 20 day
period did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment of prisoner in
segregation unit cell. Neal v. Clark, 938 F.Supp. 484 (N.D.Ill. 1996).
Prisoner's assertions that he was subjected to a
health hazard from rusty water, bad smelling pipes and exposure to human waste
which backed up through the plumbing stated constitutional claim. Buffington v.
O'Leary, 748 F.Supp. 633 (N.D. Ill. 1990).
A 50% deficiency in toilet facilities available
for inmates for a period of several months was not cruel and unusual
punishment. Patchette v. Nix, 952 F.2d 158 (8th Cir. 1991).
Failure to supply toilet paper, soap, toothbrush
or toothpaste was not cruel and unusual punishment. Harris v. Fleming, 839 F.2d
1232 (7th Cir. 1988).
Filthy conditions in prisoner's cell -- including
human wastes -- constituted cruel and unusual punishment. Howard v. Adkison,
887 F.2d 134 (8th Cir. 1989).
Replacing dormitories with cubicles possibly
mitigated spreading of disease, conflict, and privacy problems; other
conditions involving toilet facilities, food preparation, and recreation not in
violation. Miles v. Bell, 621 F.Supp. 51 (D.C. Conn. 1985).
Court orders prison to provide flush toilets and
running water in cells. Michaud v. Sheriff of Essex Co., 458 N.E.2d 702 (Mass.
1983).
Failure to provide state prisoner with adequate
supply of toilet paper was not a constitutional violation. Citro v. Zeek, 544
F.Supp. 829 (W.D. N.Y. 1982).
Problem of spillage and overflow (even though due
to inmate stopping up of toilets) was unconstitutional violation the leakage
wasn't cleaned up and contaminated beds and cells below the flooded areas.
Hutchings v. Corum, 501 F.Supp. 1276 (W.D. Mo. 1980).
A federal appeals court upheld summary judgment for a sheriff in a lawsuit claiming that he violated a jail detainee’s Fourteenth Amendment rights by failing to provide him with a bed during his three-and-a-half day stay at an inmate reception center (IRC). The court found that exigent circumstances, specifically inmate disturbances and lockdowns justified denying the plaintiff a bed for his three-and-a-half day stay. Even if a Fourteenth Amendment violation did occur, the trial court correctly held that the sheriff was entitled to qualified immunity because the right asserted by the plaintiff—not being forced to sleep on the floor during a jail lockdown—was not clearly established at the time of the events. Olivier v. Baca, #13-56371, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 1019 (9th Cir.).
A pretrial detainee claimed that the
sheriff violated his substantive due process rights by confining him in an
unsanitary and overcrowded cell. A federal appeals court found that the detainee's
claim that he was temporarily forced to sleep on a mattress on the floor near a
toilet was insufficient to clearly show that his conditions of confinement were
unconstitutional. The sheriff was therefore entitled to qualified immunity.
Jacoby v. Baldwin County, #14-12932, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 15929, 26 Fla. L.
Weekly Fed. C 726 (11th Cir.).
A prisoner who served almost 28 months in a six-man
cell claimed that conditions there constituted cruel and unusual punishment in
violation of the Eighth Amendment. His claims were plausible that he was
deprived of the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities and subjected
him to unreasonable health and safety risks because of inadequate space and
ventilation, stifling heat in summer and freezing cold in winter, unsanitary
conditions, including urine and feces on the floor, too narrow a mattress,
insufficient cleaning supplies, and noisy crowded conditions making sleep
difficult and putting him at constant risk of violence from his cellmates.
Claims against some defendants were rejected, but allowed to proceed against
others, with qualified immunity issues to be resolved after further facts were
determined. Walker v. Schult, #12-1806, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 10397 (2nd Cir.).
A pretrial detainee claimed that his conditions
of confinement at a county jail were unconstitutional, and that the sheriff was
deliberately indifferent to his medical needs for an injury to his leg. The
conditions complained of included poor sanitation and hygiene alongside lack of
heat and bedding, blocked ventilation, overcrowding, and inadequate recreation.
These conditions, he argued, together with a failure to provide detainees with
a way to clean themselves with running water or cleaning supplies, stated a
claim for relief. He said that three doctors told him that his leg infection
was the result of the unsanitary conditions. His claim for medical indifference
was rejected, since he received ongoing observation, medication, and medical
attention, but the federal appeals court ordered further proceedings on his
unconstitutional conditions of confinement claim. Budd v. Motley, #11-3425,
2013 U.S. App. Lexis 6557 (7th Cir.).
Despite a prisoner's complaints, a policy of
double-bunking did not violate his constitutional rights, nor did one night
spent with an "unhappy" cellmate demonstrate unconstitutional
conditions of confinement. The prisoner's Eighth Amendment claims were properly
dismissed. Allen v. Figuera, #10-1162, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 6097 (10th Cir.).
The plaintiff inmate did not face atypical
hardships based on any of the conditions of a Behavioral Action Plan, such as
denying him a mattress because of his attempts to use it to harm himself, so he
had no valid due process claim. The conditions imposed also did not amount to
cruel and unusual punishment, since they were not punitive, but instead
intended to protect him from self-harm, and were regularly re-evaluated. The
prisoner also failed to show an excessive use of force based on an incident in
which guards attempted to subdue him using five-point restraints,
incapacitating agents, and a Taser. Bowers v. Pollard, #09-1771, 2009 U.S. App.
Lexis 20855 (Unpub. 7th Cir.).
A correctional officer was found, by a jury, to
have deprived a prisoner of the "minimal civilized measure of life's
necessities" by compelling him to sleep on an unsanitary mattress for
about two months. The trial court declined to set aside the jury's verdict,
finding that the evidence presented was consistent with a finding of deliberate
indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The officer, however, would
be entitled to a new trial on damages unless the plaintiff prisoner would
accept a reduction in the punitive damages of $295,000 awarded to $29,500.
Townsend v. Allen, #05-cv-204, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 9911 (W.D. Wis.).
Prison officials promptly remedied inmate's
complaints about a soiled mattress and his placement in a cell with a
transparent plastic shield. His other complaints about cell conditions,
including denying him his chosen cleaning materials, one occasion on which the
cell block flooded, and the passing to him of a toilet brush through the same
cell door slot used to pass wrapped food did not amount to constitutional
violations, but were instead minor inconveniences that were part of prison
life. Wesolowski v. Kamas, 03-CV-6405, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 99263 (W.D.N.Y.).
Prisoner's complaint that he suffered an
arm fracture from falling from a bunk bed in his cell did not show that he had
been deprived of the "minimal civilized measure of life's
necessities" in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The defendants, in
failing to provide a ladder with the bunk bed had "weighed the
benefits" of such ladders against a possible risk that the ladders could
be used as weapons or facilitate prisoner suicides. Connolly v. County of
Suffolk, Civil Action No. 04-10835, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 7572 (D. Mass.).
The alleged removal of an inmate's mattress from
his cell during the daytime did not violate his Eighth Amendment rights, when
he did not claim that he was deprived of the mattress at night during hours
that he would sleep. Federal appeals court also rejects argument that serving
the plaintiff "food loaf" violated the Eighth Amendment. Further
proceedings were ordered, however, on his claim that cold temperatures in his
cell constituted cruel and unusual punishment. Alex v. Stalder, No. 05-30982,
2007 U.S. App. Lexis 9921 (5th Cir.).
Sheriff and deputy were not entitled to qualified
immunity on detainee's claim that he was kept for two days in a jail cell
lacking a bed and which was contaminated with human waste. There were other
cells with beds available, and there was no compelling interest justifying
placing the plaintiff in a cell without a bed. Herbert v. Maxwell, No 05-30929,
2007 U.S. App. Lexis 1160 (5th Cir.). [N/R]
While prisoner claimed that he was improperly
exposed to triple celling, hot and cold temperatures, and forced to sleep on a
mattress placed on the floor for almost half a year, with bugs crawling on him,
the actions taken by prison officials were in response to overcrowding, and
where not intended to be punishment. Additionally, prison officials took steps
to attempt to remedy the prisoner's complaints concerning the bugs and
temperature. Defendants were entitled to summary judgment. Poole v. Taylor, No.
99-635, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 91902 (D. Del.). [N/R]
Pre-trial detainee presented a viable claim against two
officers for deliberate indifference to inadequate shelter in his cell, which
was allegedly cold and wet, with rain or snow leaking from the ceiling onto the
mattress on the floor where he slept. Spencer v. Bouchard, No. 05-2562, 2006
U.S. App. Lexis 13846 (6th Cir.). [2006 JB Jul]
Being forced to sleep on the floor of a prison
cell, without a mattress, next to a toilet, was not intended as punishment, and
did not violate a pre-trial detainee's due process rights. Brokins v. Williams,
No. CIV. 04-1250, 402 F. Supp. 2d 508 (D. Del. 2005). [N/R]
Prisoner's claim that "triple-bunking"
in a federal prison resulted in "tension, stress, and fear of increased
hostility" was insufficient to state a claim for a violation of the Eighth
Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. He failed to show that
there had been a serious deprivation of "basic human needs." Northv.
White, No. 04-3480, 152 Fed. Appx. 111 (3rd Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Pre-trial detainee's claim that he was deprived
of a toothbrush, clean clothes, and shower shoes when he arrived at a county
jail, and was forced to sleep on the floor as the third person in a two-person
cell, was insufficient to show a violation of his constitutional rights.
Calhoun v. Thomas, No. 2:02cv1157, 360 F. Supp. 2d 1264 (M.D. Ala. 2005). [N/R]
Prisoner's grievance challenging an alleged
practice of "triple celling" at a South Carolina Department of
Corrections correctional institution, which he claimed was both a security and
a health hazard, adequately stated a possible violation of his liberty interest
under state law so as to entitle him to a hearing before an administrative law
judge. Slezak v. South Carolina Department of Corrections, No. 25887, 605
S.E.2d 506 (S.C. 2004). [N/R]
Federal court holds county sheriff in contempt
and imposes sanctions for noncompliance with order requiring that all beds at
jail be off the floor and that other conditions at facility, including medical
care, food services, recreational services, cleaning, and security be improved.
Marion County Jail Inmates v. Anderson, 270 F. Supp. 2d 1034 (S.D. Ind. 2003).
[2003 JB Dec]
Prisoner failed to show that her double-celling
violated her Eighth Amendment rights when all she managed to demonstrate was
that it made her "uncomfortable." Fuller v. Commissioner of
Correction, No. 22084, 815 A.2d 208 (Conn. App. 2003). [N/R]
Alleged confinement of prisoner to a cell with
another inmate for 23-24 hours a day, without access to work, educational,
vocational, or rehabilitation programs did not violate the Eighth Amendment
prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, even if he had not committed
disciplinary infractions. Rhode Island officials, however, could potentially be
liable for deliberate indifference to the alleged risk to the prisoner from
threats of harm by Virginia prison guards. Figueroa v. Dinitto, #02-1428, 52
Fed. Appx. 522 (1st Cir. 2002). [2003 JB Apr]
A former Illinois state statute which provided
that prisoners should have at least 50 square feet of cell space each did not
give an inmate a constitutionally protected right to such living space. Prison
officials, therefore, did not violate prisoner's due process rights by
assigning him to a cell with another inmate, resulting in each of them having
less than 50 square feet each. Court also rejects the argument that the
amendment of the statute, 730 ILCS 5/3-7-3, to delete any express reference to
a specific per person space requirement increased prisoner's punishment
retroactively. Hurst v. Snyder, #02-2891, 63 Fed. Appx. 240 (7th Cir. 2003).
[N/R]
Prisoner's claim that he was confined for four
nights and five days in a stripped basement intake cell with no personal
hygiene items, no cleaning supplies, and minimal clothing and bedding did not
suffice to show a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights against cruel and
unusual punishment. Estrada v. Kruse, No. 01-1381 38 Fed. Appx. 498 (10th Cir.
2002). [N/R]
County jail inmate's claim that he was forced to
sleep on a mattress on the floor in a cold cell for six days that was regularly
sprayed with insecticides was not sufficiently serious to state a claim for a
violation of his constitutional rights. Wells v. Jefferson County Sheriff
Department, #01-3575, 35 Fed. Appx. 142 (6th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
Prisoner failed to show unconstitutional county
jail conditions by alleging that his single blanket was inadequate to keep him
warm as he slept on a mattress on the floor and that cockroaches climbed on him
while he slept. Wells v. Jefferson County Sheriff Department, No. C2-00-0077,
159 F. Supp. 2d 1002 (S.D. Ohio 2001). [N/R]
279:38 Keeping prisoners outdoors overnight in
cold weather with no blankets or jackets, no heat, and no sanitary arrangements
for toilets, etc. while telling them they had to stay within a small space or
be shot for attempting to escape constituted cruel and unusual punishment;
defendant warden and assistant warden were not entitled to qualified immunity
for ordering a "sleep-out" in these conditions. Palmer v. Johnson,
No. 98-50595, 193 F.3d 346 (5th Cir. 1999).
257:72 Appeals court orders further proceedings
on question of whether extreme cold in prisoner's cell was an Eighth Amendment
violation and whether prison clothing and bedding was adequate to protect him
against the temperature which caused ice to form on the walls of his cell.
Dixon v. Godinez, 114 F.3d 640 (7th Cir. 1997).
Federal court should not have granted summary
judgment to prison officials on inmate's suit claiming "subhuman
conditions" of confinement, given inmate's detailed affidavit alleging the
presence of filth, rodents, inadequate heating, undrinkable water containing
black worms that turned into small black flies, etc. Jackson v. Duckworth, 955
F.2d 21 (7th Cir. 1992).
Prisoner's allegations of "small and
noisy" cell, limited visitation, and disparate restrictions on his leaving
the cell did not amount to an Eighth Amendment or due process violation. Ruark
v. Solano, 928 F.2d 947 (10th Cir. 1991).
Confinement of prisoner in strip cell without
clothes, bedding, or mattress for twelve hours was not cruel and unusual punishment.
Porth v. Farrier, 934 F.2d 154 (8th Cir. 1991).
Prisoner was subjected to cruel and unusual
punishment when forced to sleep and live in sewage and foul water in his cell;
trial court must determine whether warden was liable for damages or whether
"extraordinary circumstances" prevented remedying conditions. McCord
v. Maggio, 927 F.2d 844 (5th Cir. 1991).
Prisoner stated constitutional claim by alleging
he was placed in cell with no hot water, no ventilation, and a mattress
infested with bugs, as well as punitive solitary confinement for no stated
reason. Williams v. White, 897 F.2d 942 (8th cir. 1990).
Prisoner's assertions that he was subjected to a
health hazard from rusty water, bad smelling pipes and exposure to human waste
which backed up through the plumbing stated constitutional claim. Buffington v.
O'Leary, 748 F.Supp. 633 (N.D. Ill. 1990).
Prisoner's claim that he was forced to sleep with
a soiled blanket did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Williams v.
Kelone, 560 So.2d 915 (La. App. 1990).
Pretrial detainee's constitutional rights were
not violated by placement in cell with little heat and no blanket or sheet.
Williams v. McClain, 708 F.Supp. 1086 (W.D. Mo. 1989).
Pretrial detainee's claim that he was confined to
a cell for 22-23 hours per day for 27 days and forced to sleep on floor
mattress stated due process violation. Lyons v. Powell, 838 F.2d 28 (1st Cir.
1988).
Replacing dormitories with cubicles possibly
mitigated spreading of disease, conflict, and privacy problems; other
conditions involving toilet facilities, food preparation, and recreation not in
violation. Miles v. Bell, 621 F.Supp. 51 (D.C. Conn. 1985).
Solitary Confinement/Isolation
Prisoner's
confinement in a "screened" cell for eleven days did not constitute
cruel and unusual punishment. White v. Nix, 7 F.3d 120 (8th Cir. 1993).
Pretrial detainee's claim that he was confined to
a cell for 22-23 hours per day for 27 days and forced to sleep on floor
mattress stated due process violation. Lyons v. Powell, 838 F.2d 28 (1st Cir.
1988).
Injunctive relief granted for poor conditions of
confinement in segregation, Toussaint v. McCarthy, 597 F.Supp. 1388 (N.D. Cal.
1984).
Man convicted of voluntary manslaughter could not
be placed in solitary confinement and fed bread and water each year on the
anniversary of his offense. People v. Joseph, 434 N.E.2d 453 (Ill. App. 1982).
Isolation cells constituted cruel and unusual
punishment. Court authorized to correct situation and award attorney fees
against state. Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 98 S.Ct. 2565 (1978).
Temperature: Hot or Cold
Prisoners who had disabilities making them particularly susceptible to heat and who claimed that correctional officials failed to reasonably accommodate their disabilities that impacted their ability to withstand extreme heat sued, asserting claims under the Eighth Amendment, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Rehabilitation Act. A federal appeals court, upholding class certification, found no error in the trial court's ruling that a facility’s heat mitigation measures were not effective to bring the risk of serious harm below the constitutional baseline for the plaintiff prisoners. Class certification was appropriate because the same acts were the source of injury for all inmates as they were all subjected to the same lack of air-conditioning, had the same available heat-mitigation measures, and were all harmed by exposure to excessive heat and they identified specific injunctive relief of maintaining a heat index of 88 degrees or lower. Yates v. Collier, #16-20505, 868 F.3d 354 (5th Cir. 2017).
A trial court erred in
granting a warden summary judgment in a prisoner's lawsuit alleging that his
conditions of confinement in disciplinary segregation violated the Eighth
Amendment. There was evidence that the warden had actual knowledge of unusually
harsh weather conditions and that the windows in the prisoner's cell would not
close, having himself toured the segregation unit. The warden's "plainly
inappropriate" response to the inmate's grievance and to the extreme cold
faced by him allowed an inference that he was deliberately indifferent to the
plaintiff's suffering. Haywood v. Hathaway, #12-1678, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis
21367 (7th Cir.).
Death row inmates at a new
prison that has no air conditioning claimed that the heat they were exposed to
during the summer violated their Eighth Amendment rights because of their
pre-existing medical conditions and disabilities, including hypertension,
obesity, diabetes, depression, and high cholesterol. They also claimed that
this constituted disability discrimination under the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12132, and the Rehabilitation Act (RA), 29
U.S.C. 794. A federal appeals court upheld a trial court finding of deliberate
indifference constituting an Eighth Amendment violation, as the heat put the
plaintiffs at substantial risk of serious harm, but found that an injunction
issued requiring the installation of air conditioning throughout death row was
overbroad under prior precedent and the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 18 U.S.C.
3626, so that further proceedings were required. The appeals court upheld the
rejection of the disability discrimination claims, however, as the prisoners
failed to present evidence to prove that they were disabled. Ball v. LeBlanc,
#14-30067, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 11769 (5th Cir.).
A prisoner who served almost 28 months in a six-man
cell claimed that conditions there constituted cruel and unusual punishment in
violation of the Eighth Amendment. His claims were plausible that he was
deprived of the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities and subjected
him to unreasonable health and safety risks because of inadequate space and
ventilation, stifling heat in summer and freezing cold in winter, unsanitary
conditions, including urine and feces on the floor, too narrow a mattress,
insufficient cleaning supplies, and noisy crowded conditions making sleep
difficult and putting him at constant risk of violence from his cellmates.
Claims against some defendants were rejected, but allowed to proceed against
others, with qualified immunity issues to be resolved after further facts were
determined. Walker v. Schult, #12-1806, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 10397 (2nd Cir.).
A prisoner claimed that correctional officers
retaliated against him for filing grievances by activating a "purge
fan" that caused the temperature in his cell to drop below freezing for
approximately four hours for three mornings in a row. A federal appeals court
upheld a jury determination that the plaintiff did not prove his claim. Bibbs
v. Early, #09-10557, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 5767 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
A county sheriff appealed from a federal court's
order requiring him to take affirmative actions to remedy conditions in county
jails that were found to violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Upholding the trial court's order, the appeals court found that t had not been
erroneous for the court below to hear evidence on both rights violations and
possible remedies at the same hearing. Further, the trial court did not
"clearly err" in finding that air temperatures above 85 degrees
Fahrenheit "greatly increased" the risk of prisoners who took psychotropic
medications suffering from heat-related illnesses, and that the food provided
to prisoners was inadequate. Graves v. Arpaio, #08-17601, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis
21077 (9th Cir.).
A Kansas prisoner claimed that prison heat was
not turned on during a cold period in late October and early November. A
federal appeals court, while finding that the average temperatures during that
time period were lower than the climate data submitted by prison officials
suggested, ruled that the temperatures were not severe enough to make the
alleged lack of heat an Eighth Amendment violation. There was evidence that an
extra blanket was issued to prisoners and no indication that prisoners were
unable to wear enough clothes to stay warm. Strope v. McKune, #09-3283, 2010
U.S. App. Lexis 11956 (Unpub. 10th Cir.).
A prisoner's assertion that he and fellow
prisoners did not "enjoy" the food provided did not suffice for a
claim of denial of a basic human need in violation of the Eighth Amendment. His
various complaints about prison heating, air conditioning, small showers, dirty
mops, and repeated playing of TV shows also failed to show unconstitutional
conditions. Muniz v. Richardson, #09-2229, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 6703 (Unpub.
10th Cir.).
A prisoner failed to show that his Eighth Amendment
rights were violated by conditions in isolation, where he was placed for
disciplinary reasons. While he had the "barest" of clothing, there
was no indication that this or the temperature of his cell endangered his
health or safety. There was evidence to show that he received adequate shelter,
medical care, and nutrition while in isolation. Guinn v. Rispoli, #08-4281,
2009 U.S. App. Lexis 8566 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
A civilly committed person sufficiently alleged
that conditions in the facility where he was confined were inhumane to proceed
with his federal civil rights case. Specifically, he alleged that staff members
told him not to drink the facility's water where he was confined, as it was
poisonous, and, unlike water provided to the general population, did not meet
Environmental Protection Agency standards. Other claims involved cell
temperatures reaching as high as 110 degrees, causing him to vomit blood, and
permanent injuries caused by insect bites and stings. White v. Monohan,
#08-2567, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 8205 (Unpub. 7th Cir.).
A federal court terminated an environmental order
requiring a city to clean and sanitize shower facilities, janitor closets,
laundry areas, toilets, washbasins, and sinks at city jails, and to monitor
temperatures, as well as denying a request by plaintiff pre-trial detainees for
additional orders concerning vermin control and sanitation. The jails were not
now so lacking in sanitation as to violate the due process clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment or to constitute an ongoing violation of detainee rights,
so that continuation of the orders would be improper. The defendants had and
were taking steps to improve jail sanitation. Benjamin v. Horn, 75 Civ. 3073,
2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 78005 (S.D.N.Y.).
In a prisoner's lawsuit contending that he was
subjected to unreasonable cold and hot temperatures while confined, his claims
regarding the cold were too "vague" to show a denial of the
"minimal civilized measure of life's necessities." As for the heat,
while the prisoner claimed that the temperature in the facility was sometimes
"uncomfortably" hot, he did not claim that this caused him any
heat-related injuries. The court also rejected claims of inadequate
ventilation. Johnson v. Tex. Board of Criminal Justice, No. 07-20036, 2008 U.S.
App. Lexis 12056 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
Court rejects HIV-positive detainee's claims that
his conditions of confinement violated his rights and that the denial of his
requests to be transferred from an old to a new building in the facility
constituted deliberate indifference to those conditions. While the detainee
claimed that his cell in an older building was hot, had a foul odor, and had
bugs and paint chips, a number of reasons were set forth for the denial of the
transfer request, including his failure to participate in sex-offender
treatment, his HIV-positive status, and his past sexual interactions with other
prisoners. The court ruled that the transfer requests were properly denied, and
also that the conditions of the detainee's confinement could not reasonably be
found to be serious enough to establish an Eighth Amendment violation. Sain v.
Wood, No. 06-3919, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 330 (7th Cir.).
Prisoner who claimed he was exposed to
"extremely cold" temperatures in a state prison failed to provide any
evidence that the temperature ranged from 26 degrees to -15 degrees. The
defendants, however, presented evidence that the temperature at the time at the
prison ranged from 67 to 75 degrees. The prisoner also failed to show that he
suffered any injuries as a result of the purportedly cold conditions, or even
that he requested extra blankets or a move to warmer cell. Further, his
complaints about the temperature in his cell were investigated, and he was
moved to a different cell. Prison officials also replaced certain parts of the
prison heating system. Brown v. Beard, No. 07-2169, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 21987
(3rd Cir.).
The alleged removal of an inmate's mattress from
his cell during the daytime did not violate his Eighth Amendment rights, when
he did not claim that he was deprived of the mattress at night during hours
that he would sleep. Federal appeals court also rejects argument that serving
the plaintiff "food loaf" violated the Eighth Amendment. Further
proceedings were ordered, however, on his claim that cold temperatures in his
cell constituted cruel and unusual punishment. Alex v. Stalder, No. 05-30982,
2007 U.S. App. Lexis 9921 (5th Cir.).
Failure of Florida correctional officials to
provide air conditioning in facility did not create conditions sufficiently
severe to objectively violate the plaintiff prisoner's Eighth Amendment rights.
The court found that ventilation and air circulation at the prison exceeded
national standards, and that extra fans were provided during very hot weather.
Further, prisoners had access to water and medical attention when needed. Green
v. Secretary Depart. of Corrections, No. 05-16807, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 32062
(11th Cir.). [N/R]
While prisoner claimed that he was improperly exposed
to triple celling, hot and cold temperatures, and forced to sleep on a mattress
placed on the floor for almost half a year, with bugs crawling on him, the
actions taken by prison officials were in response to overcrowding, and where
not intended to be punishment. Additionally, prison officials took steps to
attempt to remedy the prisoner's complaints concerning the bugs and
temperature. Defendants were entitled to summary judgment. Poole v. Taylor, No.
99-635, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 91902 (D. Del.). [N/R]
Pre-trial detainee presented a viable claim
against two officers for deliberate indifference to inadequate shelter in his
cell, which was allegedly cold and wet, with rain or snow leaking from the
ceiling onto the mattress on the floor where he slept. Spencer v. Bouchard, No.
05-2562, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 13846 (6th Cir.). [2006 JB Jul]
Schizophrenic prisoner who murdered Jeffrey
Dahmer and two other persons failed to show that prison officials at Supermax
facility knew that the heat in his cell, the constant illumination there, and
the denial of his request for audiotapes to "still the voices" in his
head were making his mental illness worse. Scarver v. Litscher, No. 05-2999,
2006 U.S. App. Lexis 1135 (7th Cir.). [2006 JB Mar]
Prisoner's federal civil rights lawsuit against
correctional officials for allegedly keeping him locked in a cell without
adequate heating and ventilation was improperly dismissed for failure to
exhaust available administrative remedies. Under prison's grievance policy,
these issues were non-grievable since they involved many prisoners. Figel v.
Bouchard, #03-1567, 89 Fed. Appx. 970 (6th Cir. 2004). [2004 JB Aug]
Federal appeals court finds that Florida death
row inmates' class action lawsuit claiming that high temperatures in their
cells violated the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment
did not show the kind of "extreme" deprivations required for federal
civil rights relief in a conditions-of-confinement lawsuit. Chandler v. Crosby,
No. 03-12017, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 16246 (11th Cir.). [2004 JB Sep]
Texas prisoner's claim that prison officials
acted with deliberate indifference to his health and safety during the winter
of 1999-2000 by denying him adequate clothing and shelter was frivolous, based
on a prior federal appeals court decision concerning almost identical claims
against some of the same defendants, and rejecting those claims, Winthrow v.
Heaton, 67 Fed. Appx. 252 (5th Cir. 2003). The prior decision, however,
did not bar his claims concerning a subsequent winter, that of 2000-2001, since
it did not determine that the defendants, some old and some new, "could
not have acted with deliberate indifference at a later date." The
dismissal of claims concerning the winter of 2000-2001 was therefore vacated.
Winthrow v. Garcia, No. 04-40487, 116 Fed. Appx. 524 (5th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Prisoner's complaint about being compelled to
work in cold weather without warm clothing, or in hot, humid weather despite
his high blood pressure did not qualify as a claim of imminent danger of
serious physical harm coming under an exception to the "three
strikes" rule of the Prison Litigation Reform Act barring access to courts
as a pauper following the filing of three or more frivolous lawsuits. Martin v.
Shelton, No. 02-2770, 319 F.3d 1048 (8th Cir. 2003). [2003 JB Jun]
County jail inmate's claim that he was forced to
sleep on a mattress on the floor in a cold cell for six days that was regularly
sprayed with insecticides was not sufficiently serious to state a claim for a
violation of his constitutional rights. Wells v. Jefferson County Sheriff
Department, #01-3575, 35 Fed. Appx. 142 (6th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
Prisoner failed to show unconstitutional county
jail conditions by alleging that his single blanket was inadequate to keep him
warm as he slept on a mattress on the floor and that cockroaches climbed on him
while he slept. Wells v. Jefferson County Sheriff Department, No. C2-00-0077,
159 F. Supp. 2d 1002 (S.D. Ohio 2001). [N/R]
279:38 Keeping prisoners outdoors overnight in
cold weather with no blankets or jackets, no heat, and no sanitary arrangements
for toilets, etc. while telling them they had to stay within a small space or
be shot for attempting to escape constituted cruel and unusual punishment;
defendant warden and assistant warden were not entitled to qualified immunity
for ordering a "sleep-out" in these conditions. Palmer v. Johnson,
No. 98-50595, 193 F.3d 346 (5th Cir. 1999).
257:72 Appeals court orders further proceedings
on question of whether extreme cold in prisoner's cell was an Eighth Amendment
violation and whether prison clothing and bedding was adequate to protect him
against the temperature which caused ice to form on the walls of his cell.
Dixon v. Godinez, 114 F.3d 640 (7th Cir. 1997).
251:167 Cold conditions in cell and alleged
problems with cell ventilation did not rise to the level of a constitutional
violation when prisoner was given blankets to combat the cold and suffered no
ailment more serious than a cold. Benson v. Godinez, 919 F.Supp. 285 (N.D. Ill.
1996).
Outdoor detention and strip searches of
demonstrating inmates in 38-43 degree weather did not violate prisoners' Fourth
or Eighth Amendment rights. Woodbridge v. Dahlberg, 954 F.2d 1231 (6th Cir.
1992).
Federal court should not have granted summary
judgment to prison officials on inmate's suit claiming "subhuman
conditions" of confinement, given inmate's detailed affidavit alleging the
presence of filth, rodents, inadequate heating, undrinkable water containing
black worms that turned into small black flies, etc. Jackson v. Duckworth, 955
F.2d 21 (7th Cir. 1992).
Officer liable for $75 each to four prisoners he
forced to exercise outside without gloves or hats in subfreezing weather.
Gordon .v Faber, 973 F.2d 686 (8th Cir. 1992).
Prison officials were not entitled to qualified
immunity for subjecting inmates to freezing temperatures; inmates awarded
compensatory and punitive damages. Henderson v. DeRobertis, 940 F.2d 1055 (7th
Cir. 1991).
Exposure of inmates to 95 degree temperature,
housing of mentally ill inmates with others, and double-bunking of prisoners
did not violate Eighth Amendment. Wilson v. Seiter, 893 F.2d 861 (6th Cir.
1990).
Family of prisoner who died from heat prostration because of inadequate
ventilation in jail awarded $100,000; Sheriff also liable for $10,000 in
punitive damages. Brock v. Warren Co., Tenn., 713 F.Supp. 238 (E.D. Tenn.
1989).
Pretrial detainee's constitutional rights were
not violated by placement in cell with little heat and no blanket or sheet.
Williams v. McClain, 708 F.Supp. 1086 (W.D. Mo. 1989).
Court denies sheriff access to air conditioning
controls. Britton v. Koep, 387 N.W.2d 668 (Minn. App. 1986).
Ventilation and air quality
A
pretrial detainee claimed that his conditions of confinement at a county jail
were unconstitutional, and that the sheriff was deliberately indifferent to his
medical needs for an injury to his leg. The conditions complained of included
poor sanitation and hygiene alongside lack of heat and bedding, blocked
ventilation, overcrowding, and inadequate recreation. These conditions, he
argued, together with a failure to provide detainees with a way to clean
themselves with running water or cleaning supplies, stated a claim for relief.
He said that three doctors told him that his leg infection was the result of
the unsanitary conditions. His claim for medical indifference was rejected,
since he received ongoing observation, medication, and medical attention, but
the federal appeals court ordered further proceedings on his unconstitutional
conditions of confinement claim. Budd v. Motley, #11-3425, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis
6557 (7th Cir.).
Court rejects HIV-positive detainee's claims that
his conditions of confinement violated his rights and that the denial of his
requests to be transferred from an old to a new building in the facility
constituted deliberate indifference to those conditions. While the detainee
claimed that his cell in an older building was hot, had a foul odor, and had
bugs and paint chips, a number of reasons were set forth for the denial of the
transfer request, including his failure to participate in sex-offender
treatment, his HIV-positive status, and his past sexual interactions with other
prisoners. The court ruled that the transfer requests were properly denied, and
also that the conditions of the detainee's confinement could not reasonably be
found to be serious enough to establish an Eighth Amendment violation. Sain v.
Wood, No. 06-3919, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 330 (7th Cir.).
Failure of Florida correctional officials to
provide air conditioning in facility did not create conditions sufficiently
severe to objectively violate the plaintiff prisoner's Eighth Amendment rights.
The court found that ventilation and air circulation at the prison exceeded
national standards, and that extra fans were provided during very hot weather.
Further, prisoners had access to water and medical attention when needed. Green
v. Secretary Depart. of Corrections, No. 05-16807, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 32062
(11th Cir.). [N/R]
Pre-trial detainees who asserted that they were
forced to breathe air filled with fiberglass while in county jail adequately
stated a claim for deliberate indifference to their health or safety against
the county sheriff. Denial of toothpaste for an extended period of time could
also violate a detainee's rights because of the possible consequences of poor
dental hygiene. Board v. Farnham, No. 03-2628, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 101 (7th Cir.
2005). [2005 JB Feb]
Prisoner's federal civil rights lawsuit against
correctional officials for allegedly keeping him locked in a cell without
adequate heating and ventilation was improperly dismissed for failure to
exhaust available administrative remedies. Under prison's grievance policy,
these issues were non-grievable since they involved many prisoners. Figel v.
Bouchard, #03-1567, 89 Fed. Appx. 970 (6th Cir. 2004). [2004 JB Aug]
Allegation that Indiana prison cells in special
detention unit were "very small" and that prisoners were denied out
of cell recreation, along with allegations that the cells were
"filthy," totally lacked sanitation, and had inadequate ventilation
and air circulation systems, along with inadequate fire safety and smoke
detection systems stated a possible claim for violation of the Eighth Amendment
prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Boyd v. Anderson, 265 F. Supp. 2d
952 (N.D. Ind. 2003). [N/R]
284:123 Prisoner's claim that requiring him to
keep his cell windows closed for three days and nights was cruel and unusual
punishment did not allege a physical injury as required by the Prison
Litigation Reform Act or a sufficient deprivation to be an Eighth Amendment
violation; state negligence claim was barred for failure to comply with notice
of claim requirement. Sarro v. Essex County Correctional Facility, 84 F. Supp.
2d 175 (D. Mass. 2000).
251:167 Cold conditions in cell and alleged
problems with cell ventilation did not rise to the level of a constitutional
violation when prisoner was given blankets to combat the cold and suffered no
ailment more serious than a cold. Benson v. Godinez, 919 F.Supp. 285 (N.D. Ill.
1996).
Prisoner stated constitutional claim by alleging
he was placed in cell with no hot water, no ventilation, and a mattress
infested with bugs, as well as punitive solitary confinement for no stated
reason. Williams v. White, 897 F.2d 942 (8th cir. 1990).
Family of prisoner who died from heat prostration because of inadequate
ventilation in jail awarded $100,000; Sheriff also liable for $10,000 in
punitive damages. Brock v. Warren Co., Tenn., 713 F.Supp. 238 (E.D. Tenn.
1989).
Court denies sheriff access to air conditioning
controls. Britton v. Koep, 387 N.W.2d 668 (Minn. App. 1986).
Water: Cleaning, Drinking, and Bathing
A sexually violent person detainee claimed that a facility engaged in deliberate indifference to his hydration during a five-day “boil order” imposed by the city which was applicable to the facility. The order directed residents to boil tap water before drinking it. The detainee had a sink in his room and access to a microwave so that he could, in fact, boil his drinking water. He also was given an eight-ounce carton of milk at each meal, but still claimed to have gone without drinkable water for five days, and to have become dizzy and dehydrated as a result. Upholding summary judgment for the defendants, a federal appeals court pointed out that detainees were notified of the order and how to cope with it (by boiling water in their microwaves). The facility also ordered extra boiled water. The plaintiff did not report feeling dizzy and dehydrated during the boil order, only afterwards. There “can’t be deliberate indifference if the indifferent person did not know what harm he was being indifferent to.” Hayes v. Scott, #16-1262, 2017 U.S. App. Lexis 1296 (7th Cir.).
A
pretrial detainee, who was an Army veteran, was enrolled in a special veterans'
program. He worked in the jail laundry and lived in a special veterans' wing,
apart from the general population. He sued, claiming that he was paid $3 a day
but should have been paid the federal minimum wage, and that he was subjected
to cruel and unusual punishment, given insufficient food, was subjected to
rodents and insects, had to drink filthy water, lacked outdoor recreation, and
had to stand in a "hot, smelly room" for several hours each day. A
trial court held that the plaintiff had no constitutional right to be paid at
all for his work in jail, much less to be paid minimum wage. Other conditions
of confinement claims were dismissed without prejudice for deficiencies in
pleading. A federal appeals court reversed the dismissal of the inadequate food
and contaminated water claims, but otherwise affirmed. Smith v. Dart, #14-1169,
2015 U.S. App. Lexis 17003 (7th Cir.).
A $4.1 million settlement has been reached in a claim
by a 25-year-old college student who was apparently abandoned in a windowless
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) cell for almost five days with no food or
water. During those days, the plaintiff claimed, he drank his own urine,
attempted to carve a farewell message to his mother in his arm with a shard of
broken glass, and had hallucinations that made him believe that DEA agents were
sending gases through vents to try to poison him. When finally discovered, he
was suffering from severe dehydration, kidney failure, 15 pounds of weight
loss, a lung punctured by swallowed glass, and post-traumatic stress disorder.
Following the incident, the DEA adopted new national detention standards
mandating daily inspections of cells and in cell cameras. Chong v. United
States, demand notice sent to DEA, claim settled July 30, 2013.
A civilly committed person sufficiently alleged
that conditions in the facility where he was confined were inhumane to proceed
with his federal civil rights case. Specifically, he alleged that staff members
told him not to drink the facility's water where he was confined, as it was
poisonous, and, unlike water provided to the general population, did not meet
Environmental Protection Agency standards. Other claims involved cell
temperatures reaching as high as 110 degrees, causing him to vomit blood, and
permanent injuries caused by insect bites and stings. White v. Monohan, #08-2567,
2009 U.S. App. Lexis 8205 (Unpub. 7th Cir.).
Inmate failed to prove that he was exposed to
unreasonably high levels of contaminated water in his cell. While the water was
allegedly discolored, and the prisoner claimed that he fainted after he drank water
there, a sample of the water independently tested showed that it "met or
exceeded" required health standards. Brown v. Williams, No. Civ. 03-426,
399 F. Supp. 2d 558 (D. Del. 2005). [N/R]
Admission of hearsay evidence that psychiatrist
diagnosed plaintiff prisoner as faking the mental trauma he claimed to have
sustained as a result of his solitary confinement without clothing or sustained
access to running water was improper. Prisoner was therefore entitled to a new
trial in his civil rights lawsuit alleging a violation of his Eighth Amendment
rights. Mahone v. Lehman, #02-35622, 347 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Prison officials did not impose cruel and unusual
punishment on a prisoner, in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights, by restricting
his rights to in-cell water for six days as a punishment after he flooded his
cell, when he was allowed access to water elsewhere at least twice per officer
shift. Temporary placement of inmate in a cell not equipped to accommodate his
wheelchair did not constitute disability discrimination when it was done after
he soiled his regular cell with feces and urine. Beckford v. Portuondo, 151 F.
Supp. 2d 204 (N.D.N.Y. 2001). [N/R]
[N/R] Denial of running water in cell for eight
days and of asthma treatment for one night during "keeplock" status
did not violate Eighth Amendment; prisoner received water when required and
prisoner's pills and inhaler were in his cell at all times. Reid v. Artus, 984
F.Supp. 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1997).
247:105 Lack of hot water, constantly
"running" toilet, and failure of toilet to properly flush for 20 day
period did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment of prisoner in
segregation unit cell. Neal v. Clark, 938 F.Supp. 484 (N.D.Ill. 1996).
Prison officials were not entitled to qualified
immunity in prisoner's suit claiming they refused to remedy lack of hot water
in his cell for seven months, while he was in segregation, despite his many
complaints. Matthews v. Peters, 818 F.Supp. 224 (N.D. Ill. 1993).
Federal court should not have granted summary
judgment to prison officials on inmate's suit claiming "subhuman
conditions" of confinement, given inmate's detailed affidavit alleging the
presence of filth, rodents, inadequate heating, undrinkable water containing
black worms that turned into small black flies, etc. Jackson v. Duckworth, 955
F.2d 21 (7th Cir. 1992).
Prisoner stated constitutional claim by alleging
he was placed in cell with no hot water, no ventilation, and a mattress
infested with bugs, as well as punitive solitary confinement for no stated
reason. Williams v. White, 897 F.2d 942 (8th cir. 1990).
Prisoner's assertions that he was subjected to a
health hazard from rusty water, bad smelling pipes and exposure to human waste
which backed up through the plumbing stated constitutional claim. Buffington v.
O'Leary, 748 F.Supp. 633 (N.D. Ill. 1990).
Confinement of inmate in cell without operable
sink for nine days was not cruel and unusual punishment. Johnson v.
Commissioner of Correctional Services, 699 F.Supp. 1071 (S.D.N.Y. 1988).
Alleged unsanitary food handling and polluted
water states eighth amendment violation. Jackson v. State of Arizona, 885 F.2d
639 (9th Cir. 1989).
Court orders prison to provide flush toilets and
running water in cells. Michaud v. Sheriff of Essex Co., 458 N.E.2d 702 (Mass.
1983).
Man convicted of voluntary manslaughter could not
be placed in solitary confinement and fed bread and water each year on the
anniversary of his offense. People v. Joseph, 434 N.E.2d 453 (Ill. App. 1982).
Solitary confinement and deprivation of water for
six hours did not violate inmate escape artist's rights. Frazier v. Wilson, 450
F.Supp. 11 (E.D. Tenn. 1978).