Facilities.

15. Facilities

U.S. Appeals Court    Carney v. Craven, 40 Fed.Appx. 48 (6th Cir.
                      2002). A state prisoner brought a civil rights
  LIGHTS              action under [section] 1983. The district court
                      dismissed the action and the appeals court
                      affirmed, as modified. The appeals court held
                      that the prisoner failed to show that prison
                      officials were deliberately indifferent to his
                      request to fix a faulty light which was producing
                      a strobe-like effect, and which allegedly caused
                      him headaches and eye pain. The court noted that
                      the prisoner's request to have the bulb repaired
                      was not recklessly disregarded, but rather, a new
                      light bulb was not immediately available, and the
                      prisoner was ultimately moved to a new cell
                      eleven days after reporting the problem.
                      (Tennessee)

U.S. District Court   Citizens Advy. Comm. on Priv. Pris. v. U.S.
                      D.O.J., 197 F.Supp.2d 226 (W.D.Pa. 2001). A
  NEPA--National      citizens' committee sued the U.S. Department of
  Environmental       Justice and the Federal Bureau of Prisons,
  Protection Act      alleging that the defendants failed to comply
                      with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
  ENVIRONMENTAL       when they awarded a contract to build and operate
  IMPACT              a new prison to a private company. The district
                      court held that the committee had standing to
                      bring the action and that the Bureau was required
                      to prepare a final environmental assessment.
                      According to the court, the Bureau "basically
                      admitting that it had violated NEPA" ordered a
                      halt to work on the facility and re-examined the
                      environmental impact. The court held that the
                      Bureau violated the provisions of NEPA when it
                      initially awarded the contract. But the court
                      found that the Bureau had cured its initial NEPA
                      violations and was not required to file an
                      Environmental Impact Statement, and allowed the
                      project to proceed. (Cornell Corrections, Inc.,
                      Federal Bureau of Prisons, Clearfield County,
                      Pennsylvania)

U.S. Appeals Court    Clement v. Gomez, 298 F.3d 898 (9th Cir. 2002).
                      Inmates sued prison officials under [section]
  VENTILATION         1983 alleging violation of their Eighth Amendment
                      rights. The district court denied summary
                      judgment in favor of the defendants and the
                      defendants appealed. The appeals court affirmed
                      in part and reversed in part. The appeals court
                      held that correctional officers did not use
                      excessive force when they used two bursts of
                      pepper spray to quell fighting in a cell. But the
                      appeals court found that summary judgment was
                      precluded by fact questions on the issue of
                      officials' potential deliberate indifference to
                      the serious medical needs of inmates in nearby
                      cells who were affected by pepper spray that
                      drifted into their cells. The court noted that
                      excessive force directed at one prisoner can also
                      establish a cause of action for harm that befalls
                      other prisoners. (Pelican Bay State Prison,
                      California)

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)