Civil rights.

U.S. District Court

CONDITIONS

HYGIENE

Benjamin v. Fraser, 161 F.Supp.2d 151 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). Department of Corrections officials who had entered into a consent decree governing conditions for pretrial detainees in New York City jails moved for the immediate termination of those decrees under the provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). The consent decree involved fourteen jails that housed over 10,000 inmates. The district court terminated some provisions of the decree, including those involving inmate correspondence and law libraries. The court held a hearing on the issues of environmental health and personal hygiene supplies.

The court held that ventilation problems constituted a violation of detainees' due process rights. In one facility, experts were unable to detect any ventilation in 21 of 43 locations, including two medical treatment rooms.

The court found that temperature extremes violated due process, noting that extremes of temperature present health risks as well as discomfort. One expert testified that the human comfort zone is between 67 and 78 degrees Fahrenheit, but because inmates are for the most part sedentary, their general comfort zone is between 72 and 78 degrees. The Department of Corrections had adopted the minimum standards established in the New York City Health Code: between October 1 and May 31st between 0600 and 2200 hours a temperature of at least 68 degrees F when outside temperatures fall below 55 degrees F, and between 2200 and 0600 at least 55 degrees F if the outside temperature falls below 40 degrees F. The court found that "credible evidence tends to show that air temperatures in the Department's jails do not meet constitutional standards." District Judge Baer stated that a Department report that measured temperatures on April 24 and 25, 2000, "does nothing to assuage my concerns that detainees are being subjected to constitutionally indefensible air temperatures" because the survey was conducted on days when the outside temperature was moderate. The judge also noted that the Department's maintenance records showed numerous references to reports of no heat in Department facilities.

The court ordered comprehensive monitoring of temperatures during the succeeding winter and summer so that the adequacy of the jails' heating and cooling facilities could be determined.

According to the court, the presence of some inoperable sinks, toilets and showers in the jails did not rise to the level of a violation of pretrial detainees' due process rights. Judge Baer concluded "Clearly, in some of the institutions the plumbing is deplorable, but one must keep in mind that we are dealing with prisons juxtaposed with the tests set out in the applicable caselaw."

The court found that the mere presence of vermin in the jails did not rise to the level of a violation of pretrial detainees' due process rights. The court distinguished between "vermin activity" and "vermin infestation."

State health code violations in the jails' food service were not found to rise to the level of a violation of pretrial detainees' due process rights, where sanitary practices were adequate and no detainee had suffered a reported incident of food-borne illness.

The court held that sporadic denial of detainee personal hygiene items in the jails did not rise to the level of a violation of pretrial detainees' due process rights, where the jails overall provided adequate hygiene supplies. According to the terms of the consent decree, each detainee, upon admission to an institution, is provided at Department expense with personal items that include but are not limited to: soap, a toothbrush, toothpaste, a drinking cup, toilet paper, a towel, a comb and a mirror (if one was not available in the assigned cell.) These items are to be replenished or replaced as needed by the institution at the Department's expense.

According to the court, the fact that the city jails' laundry facilities were inadequate to handle all of the pretrial detainees' clothing, and that laundry detergent was generally unavailable, did not rise to the level of constitutional violations, where the detainees had adequate opportunity to launder their clothes by hand.

Due process violations were found from the combination of various unsanitary conditions in cells and clinics, together with poor lighting. The court noted that the combination of inhumane conditions of confinement may violate the constitution when taken together-- such as cold temperature combined with lack of blankets-- even though each condition alone would not amount to a violation. The conditions included: unsanitary mattresses; soiled light shields and other lighting problems; dirty or clogged ventilation registers; vermin activity; mildewed and decrepit bathroom and shower areas; clogged toilets; dirty janitor's closets; shortages of laundry detergent; dirty cells; and dirty clinic areas.

The court noted that adequate lighting is one of the fundamental attributes of adequate shelter. Lighting problems can be traced to several problems, according to the court: (1) non-working light fixtures; (2) inadequate light bulb wattage; and (3) obstructed light shields. The court concluded (pun intended?]: "In light of the above, it is clear that detainees in the Department's jails, with the exception of ARDC and AMKC, are subjected to constitutionally inadequate light." The court directed the parties to submit recommendations for prospective relief and suggested that they look into the foot candle standards maintained within ARDC and AMKC as an example of constitutionally sufficient lighting. Lighting was found to be deficient in two medical areas and were placed under continuing court supervision.

The court found that excessive noise may violate the Constitution if it threatens inmates' mental health or deprives them of sleep. The court cited the standards of the American Public Health Association (APHA) and the American Correctional Association (ACA) which set maximum noise levels at 70 decibels during the daytime and 45 decibels at night. Excessive noise was measured in one facility, caused by diesel generators that were scheduled to be decommissioned. The court ordered the parties to submit recommendations for prospective relief at two facilities.

Conditions in modular housing units warranted separate treatment by the court. The units were designed as temporary housing and have a life expectancy of five years; the oldest units had been in use for more than 15 years. The court ordered the Department to submit a schedule that would phase the deficient units out use by mid-2003.

The court found that officials were deliberately indifferent to the problems with ventilation, noting that the consent decree had been in effect for several years. (New York City Department of Corrections)

U.S. District Court

SEX DISCRIMINATION

Booth v. Barton County. KS, 157 F.Supp.2d 1178 (D.Kan. 2001). An inmate and a former inmate brought an action seeking injunctive relief under [section] 1983, alleging unconstitutional conditions of confinement at a county jail. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The court found that the former inmate's claims, which sought only injunctive relief, were moot since the inmate had been released and was no longer a prisoner. The court refused to let the female inmate raise clams of gender-based unequal treatment at the summary judgment stage of trial because she failed to introduce the claims in her complaint, or at the pretrial conference. The female inmate had asked permission to allege that the jail had an insufficient number of female officers to provide equal exercise to female inmates, and that the jail's male-only trustee policy resulted in more exercise time for male inmates. The jail was allegedly designed to accommodate 19 inmates but had a policy of housing up to 72 inmates. (Barton County Jail, Kansas)