9. Conditions of confinement.

U.S. District Court TEMPERATURE SMOKE EXERCISE SANITATION

Caldwell v. District of Columbia, 201 F.Supp.2d 27 (D.D.C. 2001). An inmate filed a [section] 1983 action against the District of Columbia and several employees of its corrections department, alleging unconstitutional conditions of confinement and denial of medical care. A jury entered a verdict in favor of the inmate, on all claims, and awarded $174,178. The appeals court granted judgment for the defendants as a matter of law, in part, denied judgment for the defendants in part, and did not reduce the damage award. The court found that statements by the inmate's attorney during his closing argument, suggesting specific dollar amounts to be considered by the jury, did not warrant a new trial. The appeals court held that findings that conditions were unconstitutional were supported by evidence, as were findings that officials were deliberately indifferent to the inmate's serious medical needs.

The appeals court held that the Prison Litigation Reform At (PLRA) does not require a prisoner to allege or prove serious, permanent physical injury in order to bring an action for violation of his constitutional rights.

The appeals court held that the prisoner sufficiently alleged a "physical injury" for the purposes of PLRA, with allegations that excessive heat in his cell made him dizzy, dehydrated, and disoriented, gave him a severe rash, and that smoke from rolled toilet paper "wicks" and frequent use of mace gave him bronchial irritation and a runny nose. The inmate also alleged that the small bunk aggravated his arthritis.

According to the court, the inmate did not have to allege that excessive noise in the cell block caused him hearing loss, where his contention was that the noise levels contributed a deprivation of sleep.

The appeals court held that the inmate's exposure to feces in his cell, foul water, filth, excessive heat, smoke, and mace, and the lack of outdoor exercise, resulted in a substantial risk of serious harm.

The appeals court upheld the inmate's deliberate indifference claim, noting that it was supported by evidence that treatment for the inmate's glaucoma and skin cancer was delayed for substantial periods. (Maximum Security Facility, Lorton Correctional Complex, District of Columbia)

U.S. District Court BEDS FLOOR-SLEEPING MEDICAL CARE TOILETS

Carlyle v. Aubrey, 189 F.Supp.2d 660 (W.D.Ky. 2001). A former prisoner brought a [section] 1983 action against a county jail alleging Eighth Amendment violations. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The court held that the prisoner's medical needs were not treated with deliberate indifference, noting that medication was administered twice during the prisoner's one-day stay at the jail, he was intoxicated when arrested, and he admitted that his seizures caused memory loss.

The court held that the prisoner was not subjected to unconstitutional conditions of confinement, even though water service in his cell was broken, he was forced to sleep on the floor, and he was fed only a bologna sandwich. The prisoner had admitted that he was offered drinking water on at least two occasions and that officers brought in water to flush the toilet. The court noted that although forcing a prisoner to sleep on the floor for extended periods may amount to an Eighth Amendment violation, the temporary inconvenience of one night spent on the floor does not. (Jefferson County Jail, Kentucky)

U.S. Appeals Court TEMPERATURE

Flores v. O'Donnell, 36 Fed.Appx. 204 (7th Cir. 2002). An inmate brought a [section] 1983 action against corrections officials alleging cruel and unusual punishment. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the officials and the appeals court affirmed. The appeals held that while an issue of fact existed as to whether the duration and severity of cold in the inmate's cell was serious enough to implicate the Eighth Amendment, officials were not deliberately indifferent to the inmate's complaints about the cold. The court noted that in order to assess whether cold cell temperatures violated the Eighth Amendment, the court must consider factors that include the severity of the cold, its duration, whether the prisoner had alternatives means to protect himself from the cold, and the adequacy of such alternatives. According to the court, officials responded to the inmate's complaints by offering him clothing, three hours after he first complained of the cold, on the condition that he wear a mask to prevent him from spitting on officers. The inmate refused, and later received medical attention several times. (Waupun Correctional Facility, Wisconsin)

U.S. Appeals Court CELL CAPACITY FLOOR-SLEEPING

Oliver v. Keller, 289 F.3d 623 (9th Cir. 2002). A pretrial detainee brought a [section] 1983 action against a county sheriff and two jail employees, alleging confinement in unconstitutional conditions. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants and the detainee appealed. The appeals court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. The appeals court held that the detainee did not suffer more than a de minimis physical injury from his jail confinement and therefore could not make the required showing for the purpose of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). But the appeals court held that the detainee was entitled to seek nominal and punitive damages under the Fourteenth Amendment. The detainee had admitted during a deposition that the back and leg pain he allegedly suffered from sitting and sleeping on benches and the floor of a temporary cell was not serious. The detainee had been temporarily confined on three separate occasions. In one instance he was confined in a temporary holding cell equipped with benches, toilets and sinks. Inmates eat three meals per day in the cell, and are not provided with cots, blankets or pillows. At one time the detainee was housed for 51 hours with approximately 50 other men in a cell measuring 404 square feet. He was transferred to another cell where he spent another 74 hours confined with an average of 18 prisoners in a cell that measured 174 square feet. The detainee described conditions in the cells as "a human carpet." (Clark County Detention Center, Nevada)

U.S. Appeals Court SEGREGATION

Veney v. Wyche, 293 F.3d 726 (4th Cir. 2002). An inmate brought a [section] 1983 action against prison officials, alleging they treated him differently from other inmates because of his gender and sexual preference, in violation of his right to equal protection. The district court dismissed the claim and the appeals court affirmed. The appeals court held that the prison practice of segregating homosexual male inmates was based on legitimate penological interests, and that the gender-related disparate treatment in the housing of homosexuals was rationally calibrated to address legitimate concerns. According to the court, institutions for females are much less violent than those for males, and male inmates were more likely than females to have homophobic attitudes. The court noted that prison officials had an absence of ready alternatives available. (Riverside Regional Jail, Virginia)