Conditions of confinement.

9. Condition of Confinement

U.S. Appeals Court    Frye v. Pettis County Sheriff Dept., 41 Fed.Appx.
                      906 (8th Cir. 2002). A pretrial detainee brought
  SANITATION          a [section] 1983 action against county officials,
                      alleging unsafe and hazardous living conditions
  TOILETS             at a county jail. The district court granted
                      summary judgment for the defendants and the
                      appeals court affirmed. The appeals court held
                      that the detainee failed to show that jail
                      officials were deliberately indifferent to his
                      health and safety because the toilet in his cell
                      leaked both sewage and water. Jail staff
                      frequently provided blankets or towels to absorb
                      the water and a plumber had attempted to fix the
                      toilet after the detainee slipped and fell.
                      (Pettis County Jail, Missouri)

U.S. District Court   Moore v. Gardner, 199 F.Supp.2d 17 (W.D.N.Y.
                      2002). An inmate brought a pro se action against
  TEMPERATURE         prison officials under [section] 1983 and
                      [section] 1985, alleging mail tampering and
                      unconstitutional conditions of confinement. The
                      district granted summary judgment, in part, to
                      the defendants, finding that the alleged mail
                      tampering did not result in an actual injury to
                      the inmate. The court denied summary judgment for
                      the defendants on the issue of whether the inmate
                      was subjected to unconstitutionally cold
                      conditions. The inmate alleged he was forced to
                      live in a cold, drafty cell for three weeks
                      during the winter, without his bed sheets and
                      with only one blanket. (Southport Correctional
                      Facility, New York)

U.S. Appeals Court    Rahman X v. Morgan, 300 F.3d 970 (8th Cir. 2002).
                      A state prisoner sued prison officials, alleging
  DEATH PENALTY       constitutional violations resulting from his
                      placement in segregation rather than death row.
                      The district court dismissed the claim following
                      a bench trial. The appeals court affirmed,
                      finding that the prisoner was given process
                      sufficient to comply with the due process clause.
                      The appeals court held that there was a rational
                      basis for treating the prisoner differently from
                      other inmates who had been sentenced to death,
                      due to his prior violent assaults and attempts to
                      break out of his cell, which justified housing
                      him in a cell with more secure doors. The
                      prisoner had been sentenced to death for killing
                      a correctional officer and had spent 26 months in
                      segregation, where he was unable to watch
                      television, unlike prisoners housed on death row.
                      The court noted that while in segregation the
                      prisoner was not subjected to the same hardships
                      imposed on prisoners who were placed in
                      segregation for punitive reasons. (Arkansas
                      Department of Correction)

U.S. Appeals Court    Troville v. Venz, 303 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir. 2002).
                      A civilly committed detainee filed a [section]
  CIVIL COMMITMENT    1983 action challenging his conditions of
                      confinement. The district court dismissed the
                      case for failure to state a claim and the
                      detainee appealed. The appeals court reversed and
                      remanded, finding that the civil detainee is not
                      a "prisoner" for purposes of the Prison
                      Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) and therefore the
                      PLRA provision requiring full payment of the
                      filing fee on appeal did not apply. The appeals
                      court held that the district court should have
                      permitted the detainee to amend his complaint.
                      According to the court, the definition of
                      "prisoner" in the in forma pauperis statute
                      applies only to persons incarcerated as
                      punishment for a criminal conviction, and a civil
                      detainee is not a "prisoner." (South Bay Detainee
                      Unit, South Bay Correctional Facility, Florida)

U.S. Appeals Court    Turner v. Miller, 301 F.3d 599 (7th Cir. 2002).
                      An inmate brought a [section] 1983 action against
  SAFETY              prison officials to recover for injuries he
                      allegedly sustained when he was shocked by
  SHOWERS             exposed electrical wires in showers at a
                      correctional center. The district court granted
                      judgment for the officials and the appeals court
                      affirmed, with modifications. The appeals court
                      held that the prisoner failed to show that the
                      officials were deliberately indifferent to his
                      conditions of confinement, where the prisoner
                      never filed a written grievance regarding the
                      exposed wires, and the officials denied that they
                      had ever seen the wires or that they were ever
                      told about the wires. (Stateville Correctional
                      Center, Illinois)