Reynolds v. Powell.U.S. Appeals Court SHOWERS SAFETY Reynolds v. Powell, 370 F.3d 1028 (10th Cir. 2004). A state inmate INMATE. One who dwells in a part of another's house, the latter dwelling, at the same time, in the said house. Kitch. 45, b; Com. Dig. Justices of the Peace, B 85; 1 B. & Cr. 578; 8 E. C. L. R. 153; 2 Dowl. & Ry. 743; 8 B. & Cr. 71; 15 E. C. L. R. 154; 2 Man. & Ry. 227; 9 B. & Cr. brought a pro se [section] 1983 action alleging that he was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment Such punishment as would amount to torture or barbarity, any cruel and degrading punishment not known to the Common Law, or any fine, penalty, confinement, or treatment that is so disproportionate to the offense as to shock the moral sense of the community. by being exposed to a hazardous condition in the prison shower area. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of upon the side of; favorable to; for the advantage of. See also: favor the defendants and the inmate appealed. The appeals court affirmed af·firm v. af·firmed, af·firm·ing, af·firms v.tr. 1. To declare positively or firmly; maintain to be true. 2. To support or uphold the validity of; confirm. v.intr. , finding that the alleged slippery floors resulting from a standing water problem in the prison shower area did not rise to the level of a condition that posed a substantial risk of serious harm, even though the inmate was on crutches and had warned officials that he was at a heightened risk of falling. (Uinta IV Maximum Security Facility, Utah) |
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Printer friendly
Cite/link
Email
Feedback
Reader Opinion