Facilities.

U.S. District Court

CELL SIZE CELL CAPACITY CROWDING

Chilcote v. Mitchell, 166 F. Supp. 2d 1313 (D. Or. 2001). A former prisoner and detainees at a federal detention center sued officials alleging they were subjected to unconstitutional conditions of confinement. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the officials, finding no Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment violations from the size of the cell. The court noted that all three occupants of the cell could not be off of their bunks at the same time because the cell was so small, and the occupants were confined in the cell for 20 to 21 hours daily. The court found that the crowding was necessitated by the volume of incoming detainees and the lockdown was needed because of the danger posed by detainees had not yet been evaluated. The cells had been designed to house two inmates and ranged in size from 80.7 to 96 square feet. In a triple-bunk cell, 40 to 45 square feet of floor space is covered by the bunks, sink and toilet. The remaining floor space, 35 to 40 square feet "effectively does not permit all three occupants to be off their bunks at the same time." There are no lockers, chairs or tables in the cells. (Federal Detention Center, Sheridan, Oregon)

U.S. District Court ADA- Americans with Disabilities Act 

HANDICAP

Kruger v. Jenne, 164 F. Supp. 2d 1330 (S.D. Fla. 2000). A blind county jail inmate brought a [ss] 1983 and Americans with Disability Act (ADA) suit against a sheriff and a private medical care company that contracted to provide medical care to inmates, alleging deprivation of necessary accommodations and failure to treat his medical needs. The district court held that the inmate stated a ?? 1983 Eighth Amendment claim against the company and an ADA claim against the sheriff in his official capacity, and allowed the inmate to maintain simultaneous ADA and ?? 1983 claims against the sheriff. The private medical company allegedly failed to accommodate the inmate's blindness with a cane or otherwise, despite advance notice of the need for one, and allegedly deliberately delayed or withheld needed treatment for injuries sustained in several falls, based on cost-savings policies, leading to unnecessary suffering. The sheriff allegedly failed to have the inmate's cell fitted with hand rails or provide him with a cane, leading directly to the inmate's injuries when he suffered several falls. The inmate alleged that the sheriff carried out a policy of denying or delaying needed medical care for cost-savings reasons. (North Broward Detention Center, Florida, and EMSA Correctional Care)

U.S. District Court ADA- Americans with Disabilities Act

Navedo v. Maloney, 172 F. Supp. 2d 276 (D. Mass. 2001). A state inmate brought [ss] 1983 and Americans with Disabilities (ADA) actions against a state, a private medical care provider, and medical employees, alleging that their refusal to allow him access to a wheelchair and to disabled-accessible facilities violated his civil rights and caused severe and irreparable damage to his leg. The district court denied summary judgment for the defendants, in part, finding that fact issues remained as to the extent of the inmate's injuries, and denied qualified immunity to the state corrections commissioner. The commissioner had rejected the medical staffs recommendation that the inmate be transferred to another facility with appropriate accommodations and allegedly failed to maintain prisons in compliance with federal standards of accessibility. (Massachusetts Correctional Institution at Norfolk and Massachusetts Correctional Institution at Shirley)