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

General
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

     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).

Bugs and vermin
     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
    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 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).

Sanitary Conditions - General
    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

     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 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).

Sleeping Accommodations, mattresses, blankets, double or triple celling, and cell size
    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

    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 $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).


Back to list of subjects             Back to Legal Publications Menu