Conditions of confinement.

U.S. District Court

HEATING

HYGIENE

LAUNDRY

NOISE

LIGHTING

PLUMBING

PRETRIAL DETAINEES

SANITATION

TOTALITY OF CONDITIONS

VENTILATION

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 t o 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

TEMPERATURE

CLOTHING

LAUNDRY

Brown v. McElroy, 160 F.Supp.2d 699 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). A prisoner brought an action against the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and Public Health Service (PHS) alleging inadequate medical treatment and other complaints. The district court found that PHS officials were absolutely immune from liability on the claim of inadequate health care. The court found no constitutional violation from the alleged conditions of a cold room, no clean bed linens, toiletries, or clean clothing. (Buffalo Federal Detention Facility, Batavia, New York)

U.S. Appeals Court

PLUMBING

SANITATION

Carroll v. Detella, 255 F.3d 470 (7th Cir. 2001). An inmate brought a [section] 1983 action against state prison officials and state environmental protection officials, seeking damages and injunctive relief on the grounds that the drinking water at two state prisons was contaminated. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants and the inmate appealed. The appeals court affirmed, finding that alleged lead contamination in one prison, and radium contamination in another prison, did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. According to the court, the lead contamination was caused by corrosion of the water pipes, but only when water was still in the pipes overnight, and the inmate had been told to let water run before drinking it in the morning. The environmental protection agency had found the level of radium in the water at the other prison was less than half of the maximum allowed in a revised standard. The court noted that failing to provide a maximally safe environment, one com pletely free from pollution or safety hazards, is not a violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Stateville and Menard Correctional Facilities, Illinois)

U.S. District Court

ASBESTOS

Crawford v. Artuz 143 F.Supp.2d 249 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). Prison inmates sued officials alleging that the officials did not make a sufficient response to problems caused by the presence of friable asbestos. The court entered judgment for the officials, finding that the inmates failed to show present or future prospects of injury from exposure to asbestos. (Green Haven Correctional Facility, New York)

U.S. Appeals Court

TOILETS

SANITATION

Despain v. Uphoff, 264 F.3d 965 (10th Cir. 2001). A prison inmate brought a [section] 1983 action against prison officials alleging Eighth Amendment violations. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the officials and the inmate appealed. The appeals court reversed and remanded. The appeals court held that flooding of the prison's administrative segregation unit was a significant deprivation, as required to support an Eighth Amendment claim, and that there was an issue of material fact as to whether there was an ongoing threat to safety during the flooding that would justify the inmate's exposure to human waste. Because the inmate's extended exposure to human waste as a result of flooding was a violation of clearly established law, the court found that an associate prison warden was not entitled to qualified immunity. The court also found that the inmate stated a claim of excessive use of force in his allegation that a corrections officer indiscriminately discharged pepper spray. (Wyoming Sta te Penitentiary)

U.S. District Court

SMOKE

Reilly v. Grayson, 157 F.Supp.2d 762 (E.D.Mich. 2001). A prisoner brought a [section] 1983 action against a warden, deputy warden, and Michigan Department of Corrections physicians, alleging violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. After a bench trial, the district court ruled that the warden and deputy wardens were deliberately indifferent to the prisoner's serious medical need to be placed in a smoke-free environment, supporting the prisoner's cruel and unusual punishment claims. The court found that the wardens were reckless in their disregard of the prisoner's rights, and awarded the prisoner $18,250 in punitive damages and $36,500 in compensatory damages for the five years of inaction by the wardens. The prisoner had two Individual Management Plans (IMP) which required that he be placed in a smoke-free environment, but the non-smoking regulations in the prisoner's cell block were consistently violated and the wardens were aware of the violations. After receiving notice that the IMPs were not being follo wed, the wardens continued to do nothing to remedy the situation. The court concluded that the three wardens "...each clearly ignored his supervisory obligations and, as a consequence, should suffer the opprobrium of punitive damages, not so much to deter each of them in the future, but to deter other officials in like positions of ignoring their responsibility." (Trustee Division, State Prison of Southern Michigan)

U.S. District Court

BEDDING

TEMPERATURE

SANITATION

Wells v. Jefferson County Sheriff Dept. 159 F.Supp.2d 1002 (S.D.Ohio 2001). A former inmate filed a [section] 1983 against a county sheriffs department, sheriff and two deputy officers employed at a county jail. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants. The court found that jail officers were not liable for failing to protect the inmate from another prisoner who had previously attacked him. The officers moved the former inmate to a different cell block upon learning of the history between inmates, and the former inmate did not allege that he experienced any physical injury as the result of being attacked a second time. The court held that the former inmate's allegations that the single blanket he was allowed in a holding cell was not adequate to keep him warm, and that cockroaches climbed on him while he slept, did not state Eighth Amendment claims where he did not complain to any officers or officials that the cell was uncomfortable or unsanitary. (Jefferson County Jail, Ohio)