Printer Friendly
The Free Library
4,444,672 articles and books
Member login
User name  
Password 
 
Join us Forgot password?

Atkins v. County of Orange.


U.S. District Court

HYGIENE ITEMS

TOILET PAPER

TOOTHPASTE

Atkins v. County of Orange, 372 F.Supp.2d 377 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). Jail inmates brought a [section] 1983 action against a county and corrections officers, alleging indifference to their mental health needs and mistreatment. The defendants moved to preclude expert witness testimony and for partial summary judgment summary judgment n. a court order ruling that no factual issues remain to be tried and therefore a cause of action or all causes of action in a complaint can be decided upon certain facts without trial. A summary judgment is based upon a motion by one of the parties that contends that all necessary factual issues are settled, and therefore need not be tried.. The district court granted summary judgment in part and denied it in part. The district court held that summary judgment was precluded because fact issues existed as to whether correctional officials deprived one inmate of water and basic hygiene products. According to the court, the failure to provide a prisoner with toilet articles including soap, razors, combs, toothpaste, toilet paper, access to a mirror, and sanitary napkins sanitary napkin
n.
A disposable pad of absorbent material worn to absorb menstrual flow.
 to female prisoners constitutes denial of personal hygiene and sanitary living conditions, for the purpose of a claim challenging conditions of confinement. The court denied summary judgment on this issue. The court also found genuine issues of material fact as to whether corrections officers used excessive force against a jail inmate by placing her in a restraint chair after she allegedly threw urine and feces feces /fe·ces/ (fe´sez) [L.] waste matter discharged from the intestine.

fe·ces (fs
 from her cell. The court found that the alleged act of serving food to a jail inmate on a napkin or paper towel on one occasion did not amount to a constitutional deprivation. (Orange County Correctional Facility and County Commissioner of Mental Health, New York)
COPYRIGHT 2005 CRS, Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2005, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

 Reader Opinion

Title:

Comment:



 

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:HYGIENE-PRISONER PERSONAL
Publication:Corrections Caselaw Quarterly
Article Type:Brief Article
Geographic Code:1U2NY
Date:Aug 1, 2005
Words:236
Previous Article:U.S. v. Paige.(habeas corpus petition)(Brief Article)
Next Article:Calhoun v. Thomas.(HYGIENE-PRISONER PERSONAL)(Brief Article)
Topics:



Related Articles
Hill v. McKinley.(right of privacy)(Brief Article)
Hewes v. Magnusson.(ADMINISTRATIVE SEGREGATION)(Brief Article)
Owens v. Sebelius.(HYGIENE-PRISONER PERSONAL)(Brief Article)
Russell v. Richards.(HYGIENE-PRISONER PERSONAL)(Brief Article)
Boyd v. Anderson.(prisoners allegs violation of federally-protected rights)
Boyd v. Anderson.(Brief Article)
Boyd v. Anderson.(Eighth Amendment claim)(Brief Article)
Atkins v. County of Orange.(FEMALE PRISONERS)
Atkins v. County of Orange.(Brief Article)
Davidson v. Murray.(HYGIENE-PRISONER PERSONAL)(Brief Article)

Terms of use | Copyright © 2008 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters | Submit articles