Hygiene- prisoner personal.

U.S. District Court

HYGIENE ITEMS

LAUNDRY

HOT WATER

SINKS

TOILETS

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.

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."

State health cede 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 bad 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. (New York City Department of Corrections)

US. District Court

CLOTHING

BEDDING

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)