Prisoners rights and remedies for breaches of rights

Prisoners rights
Remedies for breaches of rights
The Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006
Prisoners rights
Corrections Victoria exercises its poer to regulate the li!es of prisoners through the Corrections Act and Regulations together ith the Directors
Instructions and the Local Operating Procedures of the respecti!e prisons"
There are# of course# restrictions placed on prisoners li!es due to the uni$ue features of the prison en!ironment# hich re$uires a balancing of securit%
and elfare concerns b% correctional administrators" Hoe!er# prisoners are basicall% entitled to the same rights as other citi&ens# ith the onl%
$ualification on such rights being the legislati!e rules and regulations relating to their incarceration" 'n short# prisoners possess those rights that are
consistent ith the good order# management and securit% of the prison"
Historicall%# courts ha!e shon little interest in super!ising the treatment of prisoners b% correctional administrators" Hoe!er# courts are no aare that
the% ha!e an important role in protecting the rights of prisoners and ill inter!ene in appropriate cases to protect those rights" (i!en the passing of the
Charter# the scope for recognition of the rights of prisoners in Victorian prisons seems li)el% to be enhanced"
This as e!ident recentl% in the case of Castles v Secretary to the Department of Justice and Ors *20+0, V-C .+0 /0 1ul% 20+02 /3Castles case42# here
1ustice 5merton found that the prisoner had a right to continue to undergo 'V6 treatment despite the ob7ections of correctional authorities" 1ustice
5merton found the 3right4 of the prisoner to ha!e 'V6 treatment ithin section 89/+2/f2 of the Corrections Act itself" Her Honour obser!ed that although
the Charter as relied upon it as not determinati!e# and merel% confirmed the interpretation of the Corrections Act and Regulations"
The Corrections Act and Regulations are primaril% concerned ith administration# securit% and disciplinar% matters" Hoe!er# unli)e other jurisdictions#
the Victorian legislation does contain pro!isions dealing specificall% ith prisoners rights" 5!er% prisoner# under section 89# has the right:
a" if not ordinaril% engaged in outdoor or)# to be in the open air for at least an hour each da%# if the eather permits;
b" to be pro!ided ith food that is ade$uate to maintain the health and ell being of the prisoner;
c" to be pro!ided ith special dietar% food here the Prison <anager is satisfied that such food is necessar% for medical reasons or on account
of the prisoners religious beliefs or because the% are a !egetarian;
d" to be pro!ided ith clothing that is suitable for the climate and for an% or) hich the prisoner is re$uired to do and ade$uate to maintain the
health of the prisoner;
e" if not ser!ing a sentence of imprisonment# to ear suitable clothing of their on;
f" to ha!e access to reasonable medical care and treatment necessar% for the preser!ation of health including# ith the appro!al of the principal
medical officer but at the prisoners on expense# a pri!ate registered medical practitioner# a ph%siotherapist or chiropractor chosen b% the
prisoner;
g" if intellectuall% disabled or mentall% ill# to ha!e reasonable access ithin the prison or# ith the Prison <anagers appro!al# outside a prison to
such special care and treatment as the medical officer considers necessar% or desirable in the circumstances;
h" to ha!e access to reasonable dental treatment necessar% for the preser!ation of dental health;
i" to practise a religion of the prisoners choice and# if consistent ith prison securit% and good prison management# to 7oin ith other prisoners in
practising that religion and to possess such articles as are necessar% for the practice of that religion;
7" to ma)e complaints concerning prison management to the secretar%# the prison manager# an official !isitor and the =mbudsman;
)" to recei!e at least one !isit hich is to last at least half an hour in each ee) under section .9;
l" to be classified under a classification s%stem established in accordance ith the regulations as soon as possible after being sentenced and to
ha!e that classification re!ieed annuall%;
m" to send letters to# and recei!e letters from# the =mbudsman or the =mbudsmans officers;
n" to send and recei!e other letters uncensored b% prison staff except here the Prison <anager considers that prison securit% is threatened;
and
o" to ta)e part in educational programs in the prison"
These rights ha!e been part of the Corrections Act since +0>6# but the actual content of these rights has not de!eloped greatl%" Hoe!er# the
recent Castles case /abo!e2# ma% lead /gi!en the potential scope of s 892 to the de!elopment of a more comprehensi!e prisoners rights 7urisprudence in
Victoria"
't is also important to note that the rights of prisoners as listed in the Corrections Act are not freestanding but are sub7ect to the discretionar%
management decisions of correctional administrators# ho also need to balance the concerns of good order and securit% of the prison and other
correctional concerns" Hoe!er# those concerns ill not ala%s be determinati!e" The decision in the Castles case /abo!e2 is illustrati!e in this regard"
Hoe!er# gi!en the passing of the Charter in Victoria /discussed in greater detail belo2# it is expected that both public and pri!ate operators of prisons
in Victoria ill need to ensure that their procedures and practices conform to the Charter# as existing corrections legislation such as the Corrections Act
and Corrections Regulations ill no be interpreted in light of the Charter" 't is also important to note that the rights of prisoners set out in section 89 of
the Corrections Act are in addition to the rights set out in the Charter /see s ? of the Charter2"
'n addition# prisoners ma% be sub7ect to proceedings initiated b% the Attorne%@(eneral under section 2+ of the Supreme Court Act !"# /Vic2 that the%
are a ve$atious litigant for instituting proceedings against the rele!ant correctional authorit%" 6or instance# inAttorney%&eneral for the State of 'ictoria v
(night *2008, V-C 809 /+0 =ctober 20082 a prisoner as declared a !exatious litigant notithstanding that he had been successful in some pre!ious
proceedings"
Remedies for breaches of rights
A prisoner has the right to legal remedies# including obtaining an injunction re$uiring prison authorities to compl% ith the !arious legal re$uirements
hich are for the benefit of prisoners# such as if a prisoner as being arbitraril% denied the legal entitlement to mail or !isits" The case of Prisoners A to
)) Inclusive v *e+ South ,ales /+00?2 9? A Crim R 20?# in hich ?0 prisoners sought orders to ensure that the% had access to condoms hile in gaol#
demonstrates the difficulties of such court action"
The Local Operating Procedures /A=Ps2 contain pro!isions that can significantl% affect a prisoner" 6or example# on a breach of a prison offence the
prisoner is not onl% sub7ect to the penalties in the Acts or Regulations but is also automaticall% sub7ect to the penalties contained in the A=Ps"
The A=Ps are made under delegated poer either from the Corrections Act or Regulations" 'f a Rule in the A=P goes further than the legislati!e base it
is arguabl% be%ond the poer of the Birector to ma)e that Rule" Accordingl% an% Prison <anager rel%ing on that Rule has made an error of la hich is
re!ieable either under the Administrative La+ Act !-" /Vic2 or b% judicial revie+ in the -upreme Court" Complaints about the actions of prison officials
can also be made to the =mbudsman" This course of action is outlined in more detail belo /see 3<a)ing re$uests or complaints42"
Apart from the rights enshrined in legislation# the common la+ has established that in the exercise of their poer authorities oe prisoners a duty of
care /see Ce.an v /aines /+0002 2+ C-DAR 2062" -uch a dut% ma% be !iolated if# for example# machiner% in a prison or)shop is unsafe and causes
in7ur% to a prisoner# or if officers allo assaults to be made on a prisoner ithout ta)ing steps for protection /b% transfer to another di!ision# increased
sur!eillance# etc"2" 'f the common la dut% is !iolated the prisoner is entitled to sue for damages /see L v Common+ealth /+0962 +0 AAR 2602" <ore
recentl% the High Court of Australia confirmed the dut% of care oed to prisoners due to their special and !ulnerable status hile in prison /see *e+
South ,ales v 0ujdoso*200?, HCA 96 /> Becember 200?22"
Prisoners ha!e access to the Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal /V=CAT2# hich can aard damages to !ictims of unlaful assaults" /6or further
information regarding V=CAT# see Chapter +>"8: Assistance for Victims of Crime"2
There are also international and domestic guidelines that address prison conditions" The rele!ant international rules include the Enited Cations
-tandard 1inimum 2ule for the 3reatment of Prisoners /+0?92# hich has been adapted to local conditions in theStandard &uidelines for Corrections in
Australia /20082" Cote that the -tandard (uidelines do not ha!e legal status and are principall% for the guidance of correctional administrators"
Prisoners also ha!e a right of access to courts# and to the Victorian Ci!il and Administrati!e Tribunal /VCAT2 and the Victorian 5$ual =pportunit% and
Human Rights Commission /V5=HRC2" To prisoners ith the A'B- !irus# for instance# ere aarded damages in Destern Australia after the 5$ual
=pportunit% Tribunal ruled prison authorities had discriminated against them b% segregating them and thus den%ing them access to facilities en7o%ed b%
other prisoners" Correctional administrators ma% not interfere ith the right of prisoners to access courts or other rele!ant tri4unals"
Victoria Aegal Aid /VAA2 pro!ides legal assistance to enable prisoners to enforce their rights" -uch assistance ma% be means and assets tested# as ell
as being assessed to determine hether the prisoners application is orth% of assistance according to specified criteria /see Chapter 2".: Aegal Aid2"
Becisions are made b% VAA under the Legal Aid Act !-" /Vic2 and ma% be sub7ect to 7udicial and administrati!e re!ie /see Chapter 2+"+:
Administrati!e Aa# and Chapter 2+"2: 1udicial Re!ie2"
The Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006
The Charter has been full% operati!e in Victoria from + 1anuar% 200>" The Charter is a significant piece of legislation and is li)el% to be influential in
guiding the administration of the prison s%stem in Victoria# as the Charter has a number of pro!isions that are directl% applicable to the situation of
prisoners" The Charter does this b% detailing numerous human rights that no appl% in Victoria" Those of direct rele!ance to prisoners include:
protection from torture and cruel# inhuman or degrading treatment /s +02; and
humane treatment hen depri!ed of libert% /s 222;
'n addition# a number of the particular human rights identified ma% implicitl% be applicable to the situation of prisoners and the% include the folloing:
recognition and e$ualit% before the la /s >2;
right to life /s 02;
freedom of mo!ement /s +22;
pri!ac% and reputation /s +.2;
freedom of thought# conscience# religion and belief /s +82;
freedom of expression /s +?2;
peaceful assembl% and freedom of association /s +62;
protection of families and children /s +92;
ta)ing part in public life /s +>2;
cultural rights /s +02;
propert% rights /s 202; and
the right to libert% and securit% of the person /s 2+2"
Dhile a number of the abo!e listed rights ma% seem inconsistent ith the nature of the prison en!ironment /for instance# ss +2# +>2 it is possible to argue
that prisoners should en7o% these rights to the extent reasonabl% possible ith the operational contingencies of the prison en!ironment" 'n those
circumstances it is expected that correctional authorities ill adapt their practices to ensure that prisoners do en7o% those rights as far as is possible"
'ndeed# correctional authorities must do so# as the Charter imposes 3an obligation on all public authorities to act in a a% that is compatible ith human
rights4 /s +/22/c22" 'n addition# in interpreting statutory pro!isions such as the Corrections Act and Corrections Regulations# correctional authorities must
ensure that the% do 3so far as is possible in a a% that is compatible ith human rights4 /s +/22/b22" The extent of that obligation is further detailed in
section .> of the Charter"
How will the Charter of Human Rights be applied?
The Charter is ne and significant legislation" 't is li)el% to be of importance in the administration of prisons" Ho this ill occur ill emerge o!er time as
prisoners see) to use the Charter in their dealings ith correctional authorities" This ill be most e!ident hen prisoners challenge decisions of
correctional administrators"
The decision of Castles v Secretary to the Department of Justice and Ors *20+0, V-C .+0 /see 3Prisoners rights4# abo!e2 is an important decision in this
context# as specific reliance as placed upon pro!isions of the Charter" As discussed abo!e# the Charter arguments ad!anced ere not decisi!e"
Hoe!er# hat is important is that the Charter as used b% a prisoner and assisted the other arguments made b% her in that case" A court hen dealing
ith such proceedings is re$uired to interpretstatutory pro!isions 3in a a% that is compatible ith human rights4 /s .2 of the Charter2"
'f a proceeding is otherise in a court or tri4unal that is not the -upreme Court and a $uestion arises as to the interpretation of the particular statutor%
pro!ision and the Charter# then that court or tribunal b% its o+n motion or b% a part% to the proceeding ma% refer the matter to the -upreme Court
for determination /s ..2"
The -upreme Court ma% ma)e a declaration that the 3statutor% pro!ision cannot be interpreted consistentl% ith a human right4 /s .6/222" 't is important
to note that this finding of inconsistent interpretation b% the -upreme Court does not in!alidate the rele!ant statutor% pro!ision or create an% legal right or
cause of action in respect of the part% to the proceeding /s .6/?22" Dhat does occur# hoe!er# is that the declaration is forarded to the Attorne%@(eneral
and the rele!ant minister ho must ithin six months prepare a ritten response to the declaration and publish that response /s .92"
What Are a Prisoner's Rights?
Prisoner's Rights Law deals with the rights of inmates while behind bars. Many of these laws relate to fundamental human rights
and civil liberties.
Cruel and Unusual Punishments Every inmate has the right to be free under the Eighth Amendment from inhumane treatment
or anything that could be considered cruel and unusual punishment. Unfortunately, the Eighth Amendment did not clearly dene
what cruel and unusual punishment includes, meaning much of the denition has derived from case law. !enerally spea"ing, any
punishment that is considered inhumane treatment, li"e torture or abuse, or a violation of a person#s basic dignity may be considered
cruel and unusual within the discretion of the court.
Sexual Harassment or Sex Crimes $nmates have a right to be free from se%ual harassment or se% crimes, li"e being raped or
molested while in custody. &his applies to crimes or harassment from both inmates and prison personnel.
Right to Complain About Prison Conditions and Access to the Courts $nmates have the right both to complain about prison
conditions and to voice their concerns to prison o'cials and the courts.
isabled Prisoners $nmates with disabilities are entitled to certain reasonable accommodations under the American with
(isabilities Act to ensure they receive the same access to prison facilities as those who are not disabled.
!edical and !ental Health Care )risoners are entitled to receive medical care and mental health treatment. &hese treatments
are only re*uired to be ade*uate, not the best available or even the standard treatment for those outside of incarceration.
"irst Amendment Rights $nmates retain basic +irst Amendment rights ,i.e., free speech and religion-, but only to the e%tent that
the e%ercise of those rights do not interfere with their status as inmates.
iscrimination $nmates have the right to be free from discrimination while imprisoned. &his includes racial segregation, disparate
treatment based on ethnicity or religion, or preferences based on age, among others.
$f you have *uestions about what rights an inmate has ,or will have- under specic circumstances, you can review the materials
below and should also contact a local attorney familiar with criminal law. .ou can nd a list of attorneys in your area on our /aw
+irms page.
)risoner#s 0ights /aw 1 U2
A3A 1 4riminal 5ustice 2ection 2tandards 1 &reatment of )risoners
$n +ebruary 6787, the A3A 9ouse of (elegates approved a set of A3A 4riminal 5ustice 2tandards on &reatment of )risoners. &hese
2tandards supplant the previous A3A 4riminal 5ustice 2tandards on the /egal 2tatus of )risoners and, in addition, new 2tandard 6:1
;.8< supplants 2tandards =187.6 and =187.< through =187.> of the A3A 4riminal 5ustice Mental 9ealth 2tandards.
4ivil 0ights of $nstitutionali?ed )ersons Act
&he 4ivil 0ights of $nstitutionali?ed )ersons Act ,40$)A-, @6 U.2.4. A 8>>=a et se*., authori?es the Attorney !eneral to conduct
investigations and litigation relating to conditions of connement in state or locally operated institutions ,the statute does not cover
private facilities-. Under the statute, the 2pecial /itigation 2ection investigates covered facilities to determine whether there is a
pattern or practice of violations of residents# federal rights ,the 2ection is not authori?ed to represent individuals or to address
specic individual cases-.
4riminal 5ustice )olicy +oundation 1 4lemency )olicy
&his website is the rst comprehensive, nationwide database providing information on clemency and commutation of sentence. $t
gives state prisoners ,and their attorneys, families and friends- the basic information they need to apply to the !overnor or other
proper authority of the state where a prisoner is housed to get an early release from prison through a commutation of sentence. $t
provides samples of the actual forms re*uired by the states where they are available.
+irst Amendment 1 )risoner#s 0ights to +ree E%ercise
B4ongress shall ma"e no law C prohibiting the free e%ercise ,of religion-B is called the free1e%ercise clause of the +irst Amendment.
&he free1e%ercise clause pertains to the right to freely e%ercise oneDs religion. $t states that the government shall ma"e no law
prohibiting the free e%ercise of religion.
Minimum 2tandards for $nmate !rievance )rocedures
Each applicant see"ing certication of its grievance procedure for purposes of the Act shall adopt a written grievance procedure.
$nmates and employees shall be aEorded an advisory role in the formulation and implementation of a grievance procedure adopted
after the eEective date of these regulations, and shall be aEorded an advisory role in reviewing the compliance with the standards set
forth herein of a grievance procedure adopted prior to the eEective date of these regulations.
)rison /itigation 0eform Act
4ongress added to the barriers created by the 2upreme 4ourt when it passed the )rison /itigation 0eform Act ,)/0A-, which was
signed into law by )resident 4linton on 6; April 8>>;. A very long and comple% act, it has been described by one leading
commentator as a Bcomprehensive charter of obstructions and disabilities designed to discourage prisoners from see"ing legal
redressB ,3oston-. &he act contains restrictions on prisoner litigation that are not imposed on any other people who sue for violations
of their rights.
)risoner 0ights in the United 2tates 1 (enition
All prisoners obtain the basic rights which are needed to survive, and sustain a reasonable way of life ,meaning they have the
necessities-, despite their imprisonment. Most rights are ta"en away so the prison system can maintain order, discipline, and security.
)risoners# 0ights /aw 0esources 1 )ace /aw /ibrary
A gateway to information on prisoners# rights, including federal, state, and international primary and secondary sources, in print and
online, with a particular focus on special populations and topical issues.
)risons and )risoner#s 0ights 1 Fverview
+ederal and state laws govern the establishment and administration of prisons as well as the rights of the inmates. Although prisoners
do not have full 4onstitutional rights, they are protected by the 4onstitution#s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment ,see
Amendment G$$$-.
0elease of a )risoner
A prisoner shall be released by the 3ureau of )risons on the date of the e%piration of the prisonerDs term of imprisonment, less any
time credited toward the service of the prisonerDs sentence as provided in subsection ,b-. $f the date for a prisonerDs release falls on a
2aturday, a 2unday, or a legal holiday at the place of connement, the prisoner may be released by the 3ureau on the last preceding
wee"day.
&itle 8H 1 4rimes and 4riminal )rocedure )art $$$ 1 )risons and )risoners
&itle 8H of the United 2tates 4ode is the criminal and penal code of the federal government of the United 2tates. $t deals with federal
crimes and criminal procedure.
United 2tates )arole 4ommission
&he mission of the United 2tates )arole 4ommission is to promote public safety and strive for Iustice and fairness in the e%ercise of its
authority to release and supervise oEenders under its Iurisdiction.
Frgani?ations 0elated to )risoner#s 0ights /aw
American 4ivil /iberties Union 1 )risoner#s 0ights
&he A4/U#s Jational )rison )roIect is dedicated to ensuring that our nationDs prisons, Iails, Iuvenile facilities and immigration detention
centers comply with the 4onstitution, federal law, and international human rights principles, and to addressing the crisis of over1
incarceration in the U.2. 2ince 8>=6, the )roIect has fought unconstitutional conditions of connement through public education,
advocacy, and successful litigation on behalf of more than 877,777 men, women and children.
4iti?ens United for 0ehabilitation of Errants ,4U0E-
4iti?ens United for 0ehabilitation of Errants ,4U0E- is a grassroots organi?ation that was founded in &e%as in 8>=6. $t became a
national organi?ation in 8>H<. Ke believe that prisons should be used only for those who absolutely must be incarcerated and that
those who are incarcerated should have all of the resources they need to turn their lives around. Ke also believe that human rights
documents provide a sound basis for ensuring that criminal Iustice systems meet these goals.
E*ual 5ustice $nitiative
&he E*ual 5ustice $nitiative is a private, nonprot organi?ation that provides legal representation to indigent defendants and prisoners
who have been denied fair and Iust treatment in the legal system. Ke litigate on behalf of condemned prisoners, Iuvenile oEenders,
people wrongly convicted or charged with violent crimes, poor people denied eEective representation, and others whose trials are
mar"ed by racial bias or prosecutorial misconduct.
+ederal 3ureau of )risons
&he +ederal 3ureau of )risons protects society by conning oEenders in the controlled environments of prisons and community1based
facilities that are safe, humane, cost1e'cient, and appropriately secure, and that provide wor" and other self1improvement
opportunities to assist oEenders in becoming law1abiding citi?ens.
5ust (etention $nternational 1 2e%ual Abuse in (etention
All of 5($Ds wor" ta"es place within the framewor" of international human rights laws. &he se%ual assault of detainees, whether
committed by corrections staE or by inmates, is a crime and is recogni?ed internationally as a form of torture. 4ases of se%ual abuse
in detention are not rare, isolated incidents, but the result of a systemic failure to protect the safety of inmates.
/egal 2ervices for )risoners with 4hildren ,/2)4-
/2)4 advocates for the human rights and empowerment of incarcerated parents, children, family members and people at ris" for
incarceration. Ke respond to re*uests for information, trainings, technical assistance, litigation, community activism and the
development of more advocates. Fur focus is on women prisoners and their families, and we emphasi?e that issues of race are
central to any discussion of incarceration.
Jational 4ommission on 4orrectional 9ealth 4are
Kith support from the maIor national organi?ations representing the elds of health, law and corrections, the Jational 4ommission on
4orrectional 9ealth 4are is committed to improving the *uality of health care in Iails, prisons, and Iuvenile connement facilities. $n
this we are aided by an e%ceptionally dedicated 3oard of (irectors comprised of representatives from our supporting organi?ations.
F'ce of 5ustice )rograms ,F5)- 1 4orrections
According to a study by F5)#s 3ureau of 5ustice 2tatistics, more than =.: million men and women were under correctional supervision
in the nationDs prisons or Iails or on probation or parole at yearend 677=. About =7 percent ,<.8 million- of the adults under
correctional supervision at yearend 677= were supervised in the community ,either probation or parole- while :7 percent ,6.: million-
were incarcerated in the nationDs prisons or Iails. At yearend 677=, appro%imately one in every :8 U.2. residents was under
community supervision or incarcerated. An estimated =<; inmates per 877,777 U.2. residents were incarcerated in state or federal
prison or in local Iails at yearend 677=, up from ;H@ in 6777.
F'ce of 5uvenile 5ustice and (elin*uency )revention ,F55()-
F55(), a component of the F'ce of 5ustice )rograms, U.2. (epartment of 5ustice, accomplishes its mission by supporting states, local
communities, and tribal Iurisdictions in their eEorts to develop and implement eEective programs for Iuveniles. &he F'ce strives to
strengthen the Iuvenile Iustice system#s eEorts to protect public safety, hold oEenders accountable, and provide services that address
the needs of youth and their families.
)rison Activist 0esource 4enter
)A04 is a prison abolitionist group committed to e%posing and challenging all forms of institutionali?ed racism, se%ism, able1ism,
heterose%ism, and classism, specically within the )rison $ndustrial 4omple% ,)$4-. )A04 believes in building strategies and tactics
that build safety in our communities without reliance on the police or the )$4.
)risonersD 0ights )roIect ,)0)-
&he )risonersD 0ights )roIect ,)0)- protects the legal rights of prisoners in the Jew .or" 4ity Iails and the Jew .or" 2tate prisons
through litigation, advice and assistance to individual prisoners, legislative advocacy and public education. )0) is a nationally "nown
law reform o'ce and members of its staE regularly consult with other prisoner advocates locally and nationally, testify in legislative
forums and wor" directly with legislators, and wor" with other professional and human rights organi?ations concerned with the
protection of prisoners.
&he 2entencing )roIect
&he 2entencing )roIect is a national organi?ation wor"ing for a fair and eEective criminal Iustice system by promoting reforms in
sentencing law and practice, and alternatives to incarceration. &he 2entencing )roIect was founded in 8>H; to provide defense
lawyers with sentencing advocacy training and to reduce the reliance on incarceration.
)ublications 0elated to )risoner#s 0ights /aw
5ailhouse /awyers 9andboo"
&his 9andboo" e%plains how a person in a state prison can start a lawsuit in the federal court, to ght against mistreatment and bad
conditions. &he 9andboo" does not assume that a lawsuit is the only way to challenge poor treatment or that it is always the best
way. $t only assumes that a lawsuit can sometimes be one useful weapon in the ongoing struggle to change prisons and the society
that ma"es prisons the way they are.
5ournal of 4orrectional 9ealth 4are
&he 5ournal of 4orrectional 9ealth 4are is the only national, peer1reviewed scientic Iournal to address correctional health care topics.
)ublished *uarterly under the direction of editor 5ohn 0. Miles, M)A, 5494 features original research, case studies, best practices,
literature reviews and more to "eep correctional health care professionals informed of important trends and developments
)rison /egal Jews
)rison /egal Jews is an independent <;1page monthly maga?ine that provides a cutting edge review and analysis of prisoner rights,
court rulings and news about prison issues. )/J has a national ,U.2.- focus on both state and federal prison issues, with international
coverage as well. )/J provides information that enables prisoners and other concerned individuals and organi?ations to see" the
protection and enforcement of prisoner#s rights at the grass roots level.
)risoners of the 4ensus
&he way the 4ensus 3ureau counts people in prison creates signicant problems for democracy and for our nationDs future. $t leads to
a dramatic distortion of representation at local and state levels, and creates an inaccurate picture of community populations for
research and planning purposes.
2entencing /aw and )olicy
(ouglas A. 3erman gets recognition for the 3est 3lawg by a /aw )rofessor for 2entencing /aw and )olicy.
The major federal cases successfully litigated by the Prison Law Office include:
Disability Rights
Excessive force
General Conditions
Lifer Parole Considerations
Medical and Mental Health Care
Parolee Rights
In addition to federal imact cases! the office has "on n#mero#s state co#rt actions concerning risoners$ rights% &hese cases incl#de
etitions that have vindicated the right to marry! rotected rison visits! and established rights to free exression and to ref#se
medical care%

Disability Rights
Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections v. Yeskey:
&he '%(% (#reme Co#rt held in a #nanimo#s oinion! #blished at )*++,- ./0 '%(% /12! that the 3mericans "ith Disabilities 3ct
alies to state risoners%
Thompson/Bogovich:
&he 4inth Circ#it Co#rt of 3eals held that a arole board may not excl#de a class of disabled eole )in this case! eole "ith
s#bstance ab#se histories- from consideration for arole based on the disability% 5o# can vie" a PD6 file of the 4inth Circ#it
7inion )/11/- /+. 6%8d ,+1%
Armstrong v. Davis BPT!:
3 federal District Co#rt 9#dge iss#ed an in9#nction! ordering the :oard of Prison &erms to remedy its shoc;ing and aalling fail#re to
comly "ith the 3mericans "ith Disabilities 3ct d#ring arole hearings% &he order came after a trial d#ring "hich one risoner told of
having to leave his "heelchair behind to cra"l #stairs to a hearing! a deaf risoner told the 9#dge he "as shac;led d#ring his
hearing and co#ld not comm#nicate "ith the sign lang#age interreter! and a blind inmate said he "as offered no hel "ith
comlicated "ritten materials% &he in9#nction "as #held by the 4inth Circ#it Co#rt of 3eals )/11*- /<. 6%8d ,0+%
Armstrong v. "ilson:
3fter finding that the CDC "as violating the 3mericans "ith Disabilities 3ct and the Rehabilitation 3ct! the Co#rt iss#ed an in9#nction
to imrove access to rison rograms for risoners "ith hysical disabilities at all of California$s risons and arole facilities% &he case
is reorted at +0/ 6%(#% */./ )4%D% Cal% *++2- aff$d */0 6%8d *1*+ )+th Cir% *++<-% (ee also! Clar; v% California! */8 6%8d */2<
)+th Cir% *++<- )3D3 and Rehabilitation 3ct abrogated (tate$s **th 3mendment imm#nity-%
Clark v. California:
3fter extensive discovery in a class action la"s#it! rison officials agreed to develo and imlement a lan to screen inmates for
develomental disabilities! and to rovide develomentally disabled risoners "ith safe ho#sing and s#ortive services%

#$cessive %orce
&a'ri' v. (ome):
Conditions at California$s =s#er>maxim#m= Pelican :ay (tate Prison have been s#b9ect to in9#nctions aimed at eliminating excessive
force! imroving health care and removing risoners "ith mental illness from the (ec#rity Ho#sing 'nit% 3s a res#lt of this case!
Pelican :ay is c#rrently being monitored by a co#rt>aointed secial master% &he case is reorted at ,,+ 6%(#% **02 )4%D% Cal%
*++.-

(eneral Con'itions
Thompson v. #nomoto:
3 consent decree "as obtained to imrove conditions and establish rights for condemned risoners at (an ?#entin%
To*ssaint v. &cCarthy:
Conditions in the segregated loc;># #nits at (an ?#entin! 6olsom! (oledad! and De#el @ocational Instit#te "ere declared
#nconstit#tional by a federal co#rt% &he case is reorted at .+< 6%(#% *8,, )4%D% Cal% *+,0- aff$d ,1* 6%/d *1,1 )+th Cir% *+,2-%
"ilson v. De*kme+ian:
&he state co#rt fo#nd that the conditions in the general o#lation #nits at (an ?#entin "ere cr#el and #n#s#al #nishment and
iss#ed an in9#nction to ens#re that conditions imroved%

&e'ical an' &ental ,ealth Care
Plata v. Davis:
In the largest ever rison class action la"s#it! risoners alleged that California officials inflicted cr#el and #n#s#al #nishment by
being deliberately indifferent to serio#s medical needs% 3 settlement agreement filed in /11/ reA#ires the California Deartment of
Corrections to comletely overha#l its medical care olicies and roced#res! and to #m significant reso#rces into the risons to
ens#re timely access to adeA#ate care% &he settlement allo"s the state to hase in the ne" olicies and roced#res over several
years and gives an indeendent medical anel the resonsibility to a#dit the state$s rogress% 5o# can read the
Comlaint and (ettlement 3greement filed in this case! as "ell as the Ban#ary 81! /11/ (6 Chronicle article abo#t the settlement%
B*'' v. Cambra -an %rancisco -*perior Co*rt Case .o. /01234!:
In May /11/ the (an 6rancisco (#erior Co#rt r#led that the California Deartment of Corrections )CDC- has been and violated the
la" by failing to license health care facilities that rovide inatient treatment to the almost *21!111 risoners thro#gho#t the state%
&he Co#rt granted laintiffs$ motion for s#mmary 9#dgment and iss#ed a ermanent in9#nction ordering the CDC to comly "ith the
la"%
Coleman v. "ilson:
&he co#rt fo#nd that the entire mental health system oerated by the California Deartment of Corrections "as #nconstit#tional and
that rison officials "ere deliberately indifferent to the needs of mentally ill inmates% 3ll thirty>three instit#tions in the CDC are
resently being monitored by a co#rt>aointed secial master to eval#ate the CDC$s comliance "ith the Co#rt$s order% &he case is
reorted at +*/ 6%(#% */,/ )E%D% Cal% *++.-%
&a'ri' v. (ome):
Conditions at California$s =s#er>maxim#m= Pelican :ay (tate Prison have been s#b9ect to in9#nctions aimed at eliminating excessive
force! imroving health care and removing risoners "ith mental illness from the (ec#rity Ho#sing 'nit% 3s a res#lt of this case!
Pelican :ay is c#rrently being monitored by a co#rt>aointed secial master% &he case is reorted at ,,+ 6%(#% **02 )4%D% Cal%
*++.-
(ates v. De*kme+ian:
Prison officials agreed to a consent decree to imrove medical care! sychiatric care! the treatment of HI@C risoners and to red#ce
cro"ding at the California Medical 6acility% &he consent decree in Gates res#lted in monitoring of CM6 for many years by a secial
master% Many of the iss#es in Gates are no" monitored as art of Coleman% &he case is reorted at +,< 6%/d *8+/ )+th Cir% *++8-!
Gates v% Ro"land! 8+ 6%8d *08+ )+th Cir% *++0-! and Gates v% Ro"land! 21 6%8d ./. )+th Cir% *++.-
&arin v. R*shen:
3 settlement agreement "as in effect for many years that is designed to imrove medical and sychiatric care at (an ?#entin%

5ifer Parole Consi'erations
6n re Rosenkrant) BPT!:
In an on>going battle against the :oard of Prison &erms$ and Governor Davis$s lifer arole olicies! a California Co#rt of 3eals
condemned the :P& for failing to fairly consider evidence of a life risoner$s s#itability for arole! and ordered the :P& to re>hear the
risoner$s case% )In re Rosen;rantD )/111- ,1 Cal%3%0th 01+- &he :P& s#bseA#ently fo#nd Mr% Rosen;rantD s#itable for arole! b#t
the Governor bloc;ed arole% &he risoner filed an amended habeas etition naming the Governor as a defendant! and on B#ne /*!
/11*! a Los 3ngeles (#erior Co#rt 9#dge iss#ed an order for Mr% Rosen;rantD$s release! finding that he had been denied an
individ#aliDed determination of s#itability and that the Governor$s =no arole= olicy violated d#e rocess% &he state aealed the
order and the California (#reme Co#rt granted a stay of the Los 3ngeles Co#rt$s order ending aeal% In Ban#ary /11/! the Co#rt
of 3eal affirmed the order for Mr% Rosen;rantD$s release% &he state so#ght revie" in the California (#reme Co#rtE in an oinion
isss#ed December *2! /11/! the Co#rt denied the challenge to the Governor$s =4o>Parole= olicy! setting bac; many model life
risoners$ hoes for arole% &he case is #blished at )/11/- /+ Cal%0th 2*2% &he '%(% (#reme Co#rt declined to revie" the case on
3ril /*! /118%
Thompson/Bogovich v. Davis:
&he 4inth Circ#it Co#rt of 3eals held that a arole board may not excl#de a class of disabled eole )in this case! eole "ith
s#bstance ab#se histories- from consideration for arole based on a disability% 5o# can vie" a PD6 file of the 4inth Circ#it
7inion )/11/- /+. 6%8d ,+1%

Parolee Rights
Armstrong v. Davis BPT!:
3 federal District Co#rt 9#dge iss#ed an in9#nction! ordering the :oard of Prison &erms to remedy its shoc;ing and aalling fail#re to
comly "ith the 3mericans "ith Disabilities 3ct d#ring arole hearings% &he order came after a trial d#ring "hich one risoner told of
having to leave his "heelchair behind to cra"l #stairs to a hearing! a deaf risoner told the 9#dge he "as shac;led d#ring his
hearing and co#ld not comm#nicate "ith the sign lang#age interreter! and a blind inmate said he "as offered no hel "ith
comlicated "ritten materials% &he in9#nction "as #held by the 4inth Circ#it Co#rt of 3eals )/11*- /<. 6%8d ,0+%
PRISON AND JAIL CONDITION
Prison officials filed an appeal from a trial court order certifying a class and a subclass of prisoners in Arizona state facilities to assert claims that they had been
subjected to systematic Eighth Amendment violations by prison conditions. A federal appeals court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in certifying the
class since the plaintiffs' claims depended on common questions of law or fact, satisfying the commonality and typicality requirements. Parsons v. yan, !"#$"%#&%,
'(") *.+. App. ,e-is "()%% .&th /ir.0.
A prisoner sued over conditions in a facility, claiming that a shower floor was unsafe and slippery, that he had fallen three times and suffered a fractured hip, and that
he had received inadequate medical care for his injuries. Prisoner slip and fall claims, the appeals court held, almost never serve as the basis for constitutional violations
as a matter of law. /laims against two defendants who allegedly ignored the plaintiff's complaints and pleas for help, however, should not have been dismissed. 1he
allegation that a hearing officer ignored the prisoner's complaint about his bac2 pain during a hearing on an entirely different matter did not state an Eighth Amendment
claim. /oleman v. +weetin, !"'$)(("', '(") *.+. App. ,e-is )%)) .3th /ir.0.
A prisoner claimed that having continuous ')$hour a day light in his cell was a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. A federal appeals court found that there
were material issues of fact as to how bright the light in the cell was, what effect it had on him, and whether the defendants were deliberately indifferent to that effect.
Assuming that the defendants could defeat the Eighth Amendment claim by showing a legitimate penological interest in the constant cell illumination, so far they had
failed to do so. 4renning v. 5iller$+tout, !""$#336&, '(") *.+. App. ,e-is 7%3 .&th /ir.0.
A 8)." million settlement has been reached in a claim by a '3$year$old college student who was apparently abandoned in a windowless 9rug Enforcement
Administration .9EA0 cell for almost five days with no food or water. 9uring those days, the plaintiff claimed, he dran2 his own urine, attempted to carve a farewell
message to his mother in his arm with a shard of bro2en glass, and had hallucinations that made him believe that 9EA agents were sending gases through vents to try to
poison him. :hen finally discovered, he was suffering from severe dehydration, 2idney failure, "3 pounds of weight loss, a lung punctured by swallowed glass, and
post$traumatic stress disorder. ;ollowing the incident, the 9EA adopted new national detention standards mandating daily inspections of cells and in cell cameras.
/hong v. *nited +tates, demand notice sent to 9EA, claim settled <uly #(, '("#.
A prisoner adequately alleged a pattern of repeated prison$wide loc2downs for flimsy or no reasons at all. =is grievance only listen two specific loc2downs, but
mentioned ") others and claimed that they were the result of a conspiracy among union employee and prison officials to artificially create a staff shortage and negotiate
a pay raise. =e adequately e-hausted administrative remedies. >n a less than three year period, the facility was loc2ed down for 3#) days, or more than 3(? of the time.
:hile none of the loc2downs were longer than &( days, they could violate applicable norms if imposed for some @utterly trivial@ infraction, such as isolated fights,
rumors of potential fights, or no reason. =e also stated a viable claim for unlawful deprivation of e-ercise when he asserted that it caused him serious medical
conditions and injuries. Eighth Amendment claims for overcrowding, lac2 of hygiene and medical care, small cells, and overcrowding had all been the subject of prior
lawsuits against the facility, similar to conditions described by the plaintiff, and these claims were also viable. 1urley v. ednour, !""$")&", '("# *.+. App. ,e-is
"#36" .6th /ir.0.
1he trial court acted properly in dismissing a prisoner's individual capacity claims against a warden concerning supposed health, safety, and communications issues
allegedly imposing unconstitutional conditions of confinement when there were no allegations, either directly or indirectly that the warden had himself acted or failed to
act in any way that would subject him to personal liability. At the same time, the trial court did not properly e-ercise its discretion by refusing to allow the prisoner to
attempt to amend his complaint. 4rullon v. /ity of Aew =aven, !""$#"7), '("# *.+. App. ,e-is "'))3 .'nd /ir.0.
A prisoner who served almost '7 months in a si-$man cell claimed that conditions there constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth
Amendment. =is claims were plausible that he was deprived of the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities and subjected him to unreasonable health and safety
ris2s because of inadequate space and ventilation, stifling heat in summer and freezing cold in winter, unsanitary conditions, including urine and feces on the floor, too
narrow a mattress, insufficient cleaning supplies, and noisy crowded conditions ma2ing sleep difficult and putting him at constant ris2 of violence from his cellmates.
/laims against some defendants were rejected, but allowed to proceed against others, with qualified immunity issues to be resolved after further facts were determined.
:al2er v. +chult, !"'$"7(%, '("# *.+. App. ,e-is "(#&6 .'nd /ir.0.
A pretrial detainee claimed that his conditions of confinement at a county jail were unconstitutional, and that the sheriff was deliberately indifferent to his medical
needs for an injury to his leg. 1he conditions complained of included poor sanitation and hygiene alongside lac2 of heat and bedding, bloc2ed ventilation,
overcrowding, and inadequate recreation. 1hese conditions, he argued, together with a failure to provide detainees with a way to clean themselves with running water or
cleaning supplies, stated a claim for relief. =e said that three doctors told him that his leg infection was the result of the unsanitary conditions. =is claim for medical
indifference was rejected, since he received ongoing observation, medication, and medical attention, but the federal appeals court ordered further proceedings on his
unconstitutional conditions of confinement claim. Budd v. 5otley, !""$#)'3, '("# *.+. App. ,e-is %336 .6th /ir.0.
A visitor to Aew Crleans was arrested for public into-ication and placed in the local jail just before =urricane Datrina struc2. =e and other pretrial detainees were
moved to higher cell tiers when water began rising in their cells, but in their new location, they were in their cells for days without water or food. Eventually evacuated
by boat to a highway overpass with thousands of others from local detention facilities, he allegedly e-perienced additional thirst, hunger, and heat. 1he failure to bring
him to court within )7 hours for a probable cause determination was e-cused by an emergency situation e-ception to the general rule, barring his false imprisonment
claim. 1he failure to give him bac2 his cell phone to allow him to call his attorney when the jail phone system was overloaded did not violate his rights under the
circumstances because of the dangers of allowing detainees to possess cell phones. 1here was no liability for the various hardships cause by the circumstances of the
hurricane. :aganfeald v. 4usman, !""$#((7", '("' *.+. App. ,e-is 3"#& .3th /ir.0.
+ummary judgment was properly entered against a prisoner in his lawsuit over his conditions of confinement. :hile there were indeed feces on the wall of his cell,
the plaintiff prisoner was the one who put it there, and correctional employees too2 necessary measures to see to it that both the prisoner and his cell were cleaned after
the mess was created. 1here was no evidence that the prisoner was denied any of life's basic necessities. Ban2s v. 5ozingo, !"($''3&, '("" *.+. App. ,e-is 67&&
.*npub. #rd /ir.0.
9espite a prisoner's complaints, a policy of double$bun2ing did not violate his constitutional rights, nor did one night spent with an @unhappy@ cellmate demonstrate
unconstitutional conditions of confinement. 1he prisoner's Eighth Amendment claims were properly dismissed. Allen v. ;iguera, !"($""%', '("" *.+. App. ,e-is %(&6
."(th /ir.0.
A prisoner claimed that correctional officers retaliated against him for filing grievances by activating a @purge fan@ that caused the temperature in his cell to drop
below freezing for appro-imately four hours for three mornings in a row. A federal appeals court upheld a jury determination that the plaintiff did not prove his claim.
Bibbs v. Early, !(&$"(336, '("" *.+. App. ,e-is 36%6 .*npub. 3th /ir.0.
A federal judge has denied a county's motion to dismiss a federal civil rights lawsuit by a pretrial detainee at its jail see2ing damages for injuries he suffered when a
rat allegedly came out of a hole in his mattress and bit his penis, causing him se-ual dysfunction and emotional distress. 1he plaintiff argued that the county acted with
@deliberate indifference to his health and safety in failing to adequately protect him from rodents.@ 1here were allegedly eleven prisoner complaints about rodents in the
two years prior to the incident, as well as 3( prisoners signing a petition requesting action against the presence of rodents, and the plaintiff claimed that adequate
corrective measures were not ta2en. 1he trial judge agreed that the allegations were sufficient to survive summary judgment. +olomon v. Aassau /ounty, !(7$/E$6(#,
*.+. 9ist. /t. .E.9.A.F. <an. 6, '(""0.
A pretrial detainee in a county jail contracted 5ethicillin$esistant +taphylococcus Aureus .G5+AH0, a staph infection resistant to usual penicillin$type antibiotics.
A jury awarded him damages. *pholding this result and a finding of county liability, a federal appeals court found that there was evidence that the county 2new of the
presence of a staph infection in the jail, including an infection rate as high as '(?, yet failed to adopt 2nown measures that would have combated it, such as installing
hand washing and disinfecting stations and using alcohol$based hand sanitizers, and continued to house detainees in conditions leading to infection. 9uvall v. 9allas
/ty., !(&$"(%%(, '("" *.+. App. ,e-is %%( .3th /ir.0.
A /alifornia prisoner claimed that night light in his cell caused him insomnia in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. ejecting this claim, a federal appeals
court noted that there was undisputed medical evidence that the amount of illumination coming from the night light in the cell would not cause insomnia. ;urther, there
were medical records indicating that the plaintiff @had complained of insomnia, stress, and depression before the new night light policy was implemented, and continued
to complain of insomnia and other symptoms after he was transferred to a prison that did not have night lights.@ :al2er v. :oodford, !(7$3%%6%, '("( *.+. App. ,e-is
"7'"( .*npub. &th /ir.0.
A Pennsylvania prisoner claimed that conditions at the facility, including inadequate ventilation in his cell, e-posure to e-treme heat and cold, rodent infestation, and
overcrowding .allegedly increasing the ris2 of infectious diseases0 amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. 1he trial court granted summary judgment for the
defendants. A federal appeals court ruled that the prisoner's transfer to another facility rendered most of his arguments on appeal moot, such as his request for injunctive
relief, as he had not shown that he was li2ely to be again subjected to the same alleged conditions. :hat was not moot was his claim for money damages, based solely
on an alleged ris2 of future harm as a result of e-posure to coal smo2e in the prison yard. 1he appeals court upheld the rejection of this claim, as the prisoner had
presented no medical or scientific evidence that he faces an actual ris2 of future harm. 4riffin v. Beard, !(&$))(), '("( *.+. App. ,e-is '#%3& .*npub. #rd /ir.0.
A former pretrial detainee claimed that she was subjected to unconstitutional conditions of confinement at a county detention facility. +pecifically, she claimed that
she was forced to ta2e medication without food, which resulted in stomach problems and rendered the medication ineffective. +uch a claim, the appeals court ruled,
required e-pert testimony as the seriousness of the possible injury or illness would not be apparent. @:hether a medication is ineffective if it is given without food is
not readily apparent to a lay person.@ +ince the plaintiff offered no such e-pert testimony, summary judgment for the defendants was properly entered on this claim. 1he
plaintiff also challenged her confinement, at times, in @the green room,@ which had green tile on three of the walls and a fourth wall made of glass, lac2ed any
furnishings or stationary objects, including a traditional toilet, but did have an eight inch drain in the middle of the floor covered by a grate. 1he room was used to
observe @people coming down from drugs, violent people or people on suicide watch.@ 1he plaintiff had allegedly engaged in self$destructive behavior. 1he appeals
court ac2nowledged that @the absence of a traditional toilet may deprive an inmate of access to the usual sanitation measures afforded other inmates who are not at ris2
of hurting themselves.@ 1wo other cells adjacent to the green room, however, were equipped with traditional toilet facilities, and inmates confined in the green room are
given access to these traditional toilet facilities upon request. Additionally, in the event an inmate utilizes the drain to relieve himselfIherself, prison staff members were
required to clean the room as soon as it is safe to do so. Patterson v. /ounty of :ashington, !(7$#%)&, '("( *.+. App. ,e-is "&)&% .*npub.#rd /ir.0.
A county sheriff appealed from a federal court's order requiring him to ta2e affirmative actions to remedy conditions in county jails that were found to violate the
Eighth and ;ourteenth Amendments. *pholding the trial court's order, the appeals court found that t had not been erroneous for the court below to hear evidence on both
rights violations and possible remedies at the same hearing. ;urther, the trial court did not @clearly err@ in finding that air temperatures above 73 degrees ;ahrenheit
@greatly increased@ the ris2 of prisoners who too2 psychotropic medications suffering from heat$related illnesses, and that the food provided to prisoners was
inadequate. 4raves v. Arpaio, !(7$"6%(", '("( *.+. App. ,e-is '"(66 .&th /ir.0.
A prisoner complained that, for three days, liquid seeped through vent holes in the cinder bloc2 wall of his cell onto the floor. =e failed to show that this condition
violated his constitutional rights, as the jail administrator responded promptly to his complaints, the incident did not last long, and cleaning materials were made
available. =oneycutt v. ingold, !"($%(66, '("( *.+. App. ,e-is '(#67 .*npub. "(th /ir.0.
A pretrial detainee failed to show that his supposedly adverse reaction to =9J Aeutral, a cleaning product used at the county jail, involved a serious medical need
for purposes of trying to establish that the defendants acted with deliberate indifference in violation of his constitutional rights. 1he prisoner, who was ta2ing medication
for asthma, alleged that e-posure to the cleaning product caused him to @cough up blood.@ 1he record indicated that a reasonable jury could find that the prisoner did
not show that a physician or other medical personnel had diagnosed him with a medical condition that required treatment while he was detained. An e-amination of the
prisoner revealed only some nasal drainage, and otherwise found him in normal condition, with an instruction that he should move away from where the cleaning
products were being used. :hile one doctor later stated an opinion that chemicals used at the jail caused medical problems for the prisoner, a competing e-pert rejected
the diagnosis of asthma, and found no evidence of pulmonary fibrosis in a /1 scan. 1he jury thus reasonably determined that the prisoner failed to establish a serious
medical need while incarcerated. /hristian v. :agner, !(&$')"6, '("( *.+. App. ,e-is '"%(&.7th /ir.0.
A federal investigation into conditions at /oo2 /ounty <ail in /hicago, >llinois allegedly found widespread unconstitutional conditions resulting in unnecessary
inmate deaths and amputations, inadequate medical care, and routine prisoner beatings. 1he federal government settled a lawsuit with the county in an effort to remedy
these problems. 1he agreement calls for the hiring of %(( additional jail guards, the hiring of four new outside jail monitors, and improvements in jail medical and
mental health facilities. >t also provides for stepped$up inspections for contraband and more video surveillance of inmate housing. *.+.A. v. /oo2 /ounty, >llinois, !"($
/$'&)% .*.+. 9ist /t., A.9. >ll., 5ay "#, '("(0.
1he plaintiff inmate did not face atypical hardships based on any of the conditions of a Behavioral Action Plan, such as denying him a mattress because of his
attempts to use it to harm himself, so he had no valid due process claim. 1he conditions imposed also did not amount to cruel and unusual punishment, since they were
not punitive, but instead intended to protect him from self$harm, and were regularly re$evaluated. 1he prisoner also failed to show an e-cessive use of force based on an
incident in which guards attempted to subdue him using five$point restraints, incapacitating agents, and a 1aser. Bowers v. Pollard, !(&$"66", '((& *.+. App. ,e-is
'(733 .*npub. 6th /ir.0.
A correctional officer was found, by a jury, to have deprived a prisoner of the @minimal civilized measure of life's necessities@ by compelling him to sleep on an
unsanitary mattress for about two months. 1he trial court declined to set aside the jury's verdict, finding that the evidence presented was consistent with a finding of
deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 1he officer, however, would be entitled to a new trial on damages unless the plaintiff prisoner would
accept a reduction in the punitive damages of 8'&3,((( awarded to 8'&,3((. 1ownsend v. Allen, !(3$cv$'(), '((& *.+. 9ist. ,e-is &&"" .:.9. :is.0.
A prisoner failed to show that his Eighth Amendment rights were violated by conditions in isolation, where he was placed for disciplinary reasons. :hile he had the
@barest@ of clothing, there was no indication that this or the temperature of his cell endangered his health or safety. 1here was evidence to show that he received
adequate shelter, medical care, and nutrition while in isolation. 4uinn v. ispoli, !(7$)'7", '((& *.+. App. ,e-is 73%% .*npub. #rd /ir.0.
A civilly committed person sufficiently alleged that conditions in the facility where he was confined were inhumane to proceed with his federal civil rights case.
+pecifically, he alleged that staff members told him not to drin2 the facility's water where he was confined, as it was poisonous, and, unli2e water provided to the
general population, did not meet Environmental Protection Agency standards. Cther claims involved cell temperatures reaching as high as ""( degrees, causing him to
vomit blood, and permanent injuries caused by insect bites and stings. :hite v. 5onohan, !(7$'3%6, '((& *.+. App. ,e-is 7'(3 .*npub. 6th /ir.0.
:hen the only relief sought by a plaintiff prisoner was an award of money damages against a defendant commissioner of a correctional facility, and he failed to
allege that this defendant was personally responsible for the complained of conditions of confinement, the lawsuit was properly dismissed. Pettus v. 5orgenthau, Ao.
(6(#&3, 33) ;.#d '&# .'nd /ir. '((&0.
5ost of the conditions of confinement challenged by :isconsin inmates civilly committed as @se-ually dangerous@ were justified on the basis of security, including
restrictions on visitors, leaving the facility, phone call monitoring, inspection of mail, property, and the inmates' persons, requiring restraints during transport, and
mandating the wearing of institutional clothes. :al2er v. =ayden, Ao. (7$'%'7, '((7 *.+. App. ,e-is '3(") .*npub. 6th /ir.0.
Prison officials promptly remedied inmate's complaints about a soiled mattress and his placement in a cell with a transparent plastic shield. =is other complaints
about cell conditions, including denying him his chosen cleaning materials, one occasion on which the cell bloc2 flooded, and the passing to him of a toilet brush
through the same cell door slot used to pass wrapped food did not amount to constitutional violations, but were instead minor inconveniences that were part of prison
life. :esolows2i v. Damas, (#$/E$%)(3, '((7 *.+. 9ist. ,e-is &&'%# .:.9.A.F.0.
:hen none of the individual prison conditions an inmate complained of involved the deprivation of a human need, the court need not consider whether these
conditions @in combination@ violated his constitutional rights. ,ucero v. 5esa /ounty +heriff's 9ept., Ao. (7$"(%7, '((7 *.+. App. ,e-is ')%#( .*npub. "(th /ir.0.
;ederal appeals court overturns dismissal of prisoner's lawsuit alleging that prison practices and regulations resulted, after he paid costs for constitutionally protected
litigation, in the inmate being without the funds to buy needed hygiene products, and that the defendants acted with deliberate indifference in failing to provide him with
such hygiene products for a prolonged period of time. 1he appeals court rejected that trial court's belief that the issue simply amounted to the prisoner's own decision as
how to spend his limited funds. Preliminary injunctive relief, however, was denied. :hitington v. Crtiz, Ao. (6$")'3, '((& *.+. App. ,e-is %3" .*npub. "(th /ir.0.
/ourt rejects =>E$positive detainee's claims that his conditions of confinement violated his rights and that the denial of his requests to be transferred from an old to a
new building in the facility constituted deliberate indifference to those conditions. :hile the detainee claimed that his cell in an older building was hot, had a foul odor,
and had bugs and paint chips, a number of reasons were set forth for the denial of the transfer request, including his failure to participate in se-$offender treatment, his
=>E$positive status, and his past se-ual interactions with other prisoners. 1he court ruled that the transfer requests were properly denied, and also that the conditions of
the detainee's confinement could not reasonably be found to be serious enough to establish an Eighth Amendment violation. +ain v. :ood, Ao. (%$#&"&, '((7 *.+. App.
,e-is ##( .6th /ir.0.
Prison rule barring prisoners from tal2ing to each other while in the dining hall did not violate their rights to free speech, due process of law, or constitute cruel and
unusual punishment. =endric2son v. 5c/reanor, !(3$)#)(, '((% *.+. App. ,e-is ')&(% .#rd /ir.0. K'((% <B AovL
Prisoner's failure, in suing over alleged prison overcrowding, understaffing, and @oppressive cell conditions,@ to allege physical injuries did not entirely bar his
claims under Prison ,itigation eform Act, but rather, merely limited remedies available. ;ederal appeals court overturns dismissal of lawsuit. 5yron v. 1erhune, Ao.
()$"366(, '((% *.+. App. ,e-is '()() .&th /ir.0.K'((% <P CctL
;urther proceedings ordered on pre$trial detainees' lawsuit claiming unconstitutional conditions of confinement because trial court improperly used Eighth
Amendment cruel and unusual punishment rather than ;ourteenth Amendment due process analysis in dismissing claims. =ubbard v. 1aylor, Ao. (#$'#6', #&& ;.#d "3(
.#d /ir. '((30. K'((3 <B 5ayL
/alifornia prisoner who had completed his criminal sentence and was a civil detainee awaiting proceedings to commit him as a se-ually violent predator was entitled
to non$punitive conditions of confinement under the due process clause of the ;ourteenth Amendment. +ummary judgment for correctional officials in his lawsuit
challenging his conditions of confinement was therefore improper. <ones v. Blanas, Ao. ('$"6")7, '(() *.+. App. ,e-is '%7") .&th /ir. '(()0. K'((3 <B ;ebL
*.+. +upreme /ourt, in case involving death$row prisoner's challenge to Alabama state's use of a death penalty procedure requiring an incision into his arm or leg to
access his severely compromised veins, rules that federal civil rights statute, )' *.+./. +ec. "&7# is an @appropriate@ manner to assert an Eighth Amendment claim
challenging confinement conditions in prison and see2ing injunctive relief. Aelson v. /ampbell, !(#$%7'", "') +. /t. '""6 .'(()0.K'(() <B <ulL
1rial court failed to adequately show that an injunction was required to remedy fire safety issues at correctional facility. =adi- v. <ohnson, Ao. (#$"##), '(() *.+.
App. ,e-is 777& .%th /ir. '(()0. K'(() <B <unL
Prisoner's claim that his constitutional rights to adequate conditions and medical care were being violated in a private prison in Chio where he was incarcerated
under a contract with the 9istrict of /olumbia, and that 9./. officials 2new or should have 2nown of this, but failed to ta2e corrective action was sufficient to state a
federal civil rights claim against the 9istrict. :arren v. 9istrict of /olumbia, Ao. ('$6"'(, #3# ;.#d #% .9./. /ir. '(()0. K'(() <B 5arL
;ederal court holds county sheriff in contempt and imposes sanctions for noncompliance with order requiring that all beds at jail be off the floor and that other
conditions at facility, including medical care, food services, recreational services, cleaning, and security be improved. 5arion /ounty <ail >nmates v. Anderson, '6( ;.
+upp. 'd "(#) .+.9. >nd. '((#0. K'((# <B 9ecL
<ail inmate's lawsuit claiming that the jail had cells that smelled of urine, poor means of transporting prisoners, bad living conditions, nurses with @bad attitudes,@
@unruly and abusive@ guards, and that he was denied adequate medical care was sufficient to give the defendant jail officials notice of the claims against them so that
they could file an answer and prepare for trial. :hile some of his allegations were @generalized,@ they were neither @vague nor conclusory.@ Evans v. Aassau /ounty,
"7) ;. +upp. 'd '#7 .E.9.A.F. '(('0. KAIL
Pretrial detainee stated a claim for violation of his due process rights based on alleged e-posure to unsanitary and hazardous conditions in correctional facility's
shower area for a nine month period. Alleged failure to enforce rules requiring inspections and failure to order repairs performed were sufficient to show personal
involvement of defendant official for purposes of the prisoner's claim. /urry v. Deri2, Ao. (( /iv. )6(%, "%# ;. +upp. 'd '#' .+.9. Aew For2 '(("0. KAIL
'66M) Prisoner with list of over 3( correctional officials and employees as defendants in his federal civil rights lawsuit failed to say how any one of them had
personally violated his rights, and failed to show that conditions at the prison had caused him, personally, any harm, so his lawsuit was properly dismissed. Ellis v.
Aorris, !&6$"#&(, "6& ;.#d "(67 .7th /ir. "&&&0.
'"6M7 <ury instructions which allowed award of damages against prison officials on the basis of @rec2less disregard@ of alleged unconstitutional prison conditions
were legally defectiveN appeals court orders new trial in federal civil rights lawsuit. /lar2 v. Armontrout, '7 ;.#d 6" .7th /ir. "&&)0.
''6M"6( <ury instructions on e-cessive force which did not include the word @sadistically@ did not constitute plain error requiring reversal of jury award against five
correctional officers. Ba2er v. 9elo, #7 ;.#d "(') .7th /ir. "&&)0.
KAIL ;ederal marshals did not violate any clearly established rights that inmate had when they contracted to place a pretrial detainee in local jails and transported
him thereN various conditions in local jails did not constitute unconstitutional deprivation of human needs. <ordan v. 9oe, #7 ;.#d "33& .""th /ir. "&&)0.
;ederal appeals court overturns injunction against conditions in Cregon disciplinary segregation unit and vacates award of 8""(,&3'.3( in attorneys' fee to plaintiff
prisonerN rules that @malicious and sadistic@ conduct, rather than @deliberate indifference@ was the proper legal standard for subjective state of mind of prison officials
required to show an Eighth Amendment violation under these circumstances. ,e5aire v. 5aass, "' ;.#d "))) .&th /ir. "&&#0.
Prisoner was not denied a fair trial on his civil right claim when the jury was allowed to see him in shac2les during trial. =olloway v. Ale-ander, &36 ;.'d 3'& .7th
/ir. "&&'0.
;ederal statute authorizing nonconsensual referral of prisoner lawsuits challenging @conditions of confinement@ to magistrates includes civil rights lawsuits over
individual incidents of unconstitutional conduct, such as alleged e-cessive use of force, as well as over ongoing prison conditions. 5c/arthy v. Bronson, """ +./t. "6#6
."&&"0.
;ederal statute authorizing nonconsensual referral of prisoner lawsuits challenging @conditions of confinement@ to magistrates includes civil rights lawsuits over
individual incidents of unconstitutional conduct, such as alleged e-cessive use of force, as well as over ongoing prison conditions. 5c/arthy v. Bronson, """ +./t. "6#6
."&&"0.
=ousing of protective custody inmates and inmates with mental health problems with punitive segregation inmates violated eighth amendment. >nmates of Cccoquan
v. Barry, 6"6 ;.+upp. 73) .9.9./. "&7&0.
Alleged denial of @adequate e-ercise@ during three days in jail did not state constitutional claim. Brown v. /opeland, 67( +.:.'d %7 .5o. App. "&7&0.
,evel of inmate$inmate and staff$inmate violence at institution reached proportions violating eighth amendment. ;isher v. Doehler, %&' ;.+upp. "3"& .+.9.A.F.
"&770.
>mportant court decision encourages prison officials to adopt standards by American /orrectional Association, the American Public =ealth Association, and 1he ,ife
+afety /ode to correct unconstitutional conditions. >nmates of Cccoquan v. Barry, %3( ;.+upp. %"& .9.9./. "&7%0.
/hanges in prison policy after riot were improper. :al2er v. 5intzes, 66" ;.'d &'( .%th /ir. "&730.
@Boo2mobile@ library unconstitutional, visitation time for males and females doesn't have to be the same, and policy of forbidding wee2end and minors from visiting
is unlawful. 5orrow v. =arwell, 6%7 ;.'d %"& .3th /ir. "&730.
/ourt orders jail to hire and train additional guards. Alberti v. Dlevenhagen, %(% ;.+upp. )67 .+.9. 1e-. "&730.
/ourt orders corrections in various conditions, including classification of juveniles to protect against se-ual assaults. Balla v. >daho +tate Bd. of /orrections, 3&3
;.+upp. "337 .9. >daho "&7)0.
/ap ordered after population nearly doubled. 5onmouth /ty. /orrectional >nst. >nmates v. ,anzaro, 3&3 ;.+upp. ")"6 .9. A.<. "&7)0.
+outh 9a2ota prison conditions violates Eighth Amendment. /ody v. =illard, 3&& ;.+upp. "('3 .9. +.9. "&7)0.
/o. association denied intervention in civil rights suit. Bush v. Eiterna, 6)( ;.'d #3( .3th /ir. "&7)0.
+cheduling of dental appointments, eating time, library use, and access to counsel upheld. obbins v. +outh, 3&3 ;.+upp. 673 .9. 5ont. "&7)0.
>njunctive relief granted for poor conditions of confinement in segregation, 1oussaint v. 5c/arthy, 3&6 ;.+upp. "#77 .A.9. /al. "&7)0.
/ourt prevented from ordering officials off adjustment committee. Dendric2 v. Bland, 6)( ;.'d )#' .%th cir. "&7)0.
>nmate's transfer to cell with water renders his claim moot. ;ulford v. 4uissinger, )3' +o.'d "#"" .,a. App. "&7)0.
Ao violation regarding restraining prisoner's hands when outside tiersN denial of letters between prisonersN denial of television viewing and newspapersN and limiting
phone calls and personal property. Armstead v. Phelps, ))& +o.'d "()& .,a. App. "&7)0.
Pretrial detainees not entitled to receive se-ually provocative mailN visitation, library rights, and overcrowded conditions also discussed. 5allery v. ,ewis, %67 P.'d
"& .>daho "&7#0.
/ourt orders changes in general jail conditions. utherford v. Pitchess, 6"( ;.'d 36' .&th /ir. "&7#0.
estraint cells for administrative segregation were inhumane. ,ovell v. Brennan, 3%% ;.+upp. %6' .9. 5e. "&7#0.
Ao liability for mental anguish of inmate e-posed to fellow inmate's tuberculosis. +ypert v. *.+., 33& ;.+upp. 3)% .9.9./. "&7#0.
Aumerous conditions at county jail violated constitutional standards sanitation, safety, medical care, e-ercise, discipline and access to courts. 5artino v. /arey, 3%#
;. +up. &7) .9. Cre. "&7#0.
A county resident ta-payer and several prisoners challenge conditions at county jail. 5endoza v. 1ulare /o., "7( /al.ptr. #)6 .App. "&7'0.
/o. jail conditions violate constitutional standards. =ic2son v. Dellison, '&% +.E.'d 733 .:. Ea. "&7'0.
+everal 1ennessee prison conditions in @totality@ violated constitutional rights of inmates and amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. 4rubbs v. Bradley, 33'
;.+upp. "(3' .5.9. 1enn. "&7'0.
Portion of consent decree requiring mess hall construction withdrawnN jail officials permitted to continue serving meals in tiers. 5erriweather v. +herwood, 3"7
;.+upp. #33 .+.9. A.F. "&7"0.
*tah +upreme /ourt dismisses suit against guard alleging offer to provide controlled substances in e-change for se- act. +tac2 v. 5artinez, %#& P.'d "3) .*tah
"&7"0.
9ismissal of former jail inmate's pro se complaint reversedN court allows plaintiff to amend complaint challenging jail conditions even though he was no longer a
resident at that facility. :eaver v. :ilco-, %3( ;.'d '' .#rd /ir. "&7"0.
5assachusetts jail ordered to comply with public health regulations. Attorney 4eneral v. +heriff of :orcester /ty., )"# A.E.'d 6'' .5ass. "&7(0.
;ederal court finds that health care system and environmental conditions at >llinois prison violated inmates' constitutional rightsN court orders officials to comply
with minimum constitutional levels of care. ,ightfoot v. :al2er, )7% ;.+upp. 3() .A.9. >ll. "&7(0.
Aew For2 9istrict court orders trial on prisoner's claim that conditions of his temporary confinement violated his constitutional rights. ,eon v. =arris, )7& ;.+upp.
''" .+.9. A.F. "&7(0.
Aew Adams /o., 5ississippi jail given federal court approvalN inmates suit dismissed. 4reen v. ;errell, 3(( ;.+upp. 76( .+.9. 5iss. "&7(0. Attica special housing
inmates allowed to proceed on certain alleged constitutional claimsN class action denied. 4riffin v. +mith, )&# ;.+upp. "'& .:.9. A.F. "&7(0.
/lass action suit by inmates in Ar2ansas jail is partially successful in challenging conditions of confinements. /ampbell v. /authron, %'# ;.'d 3(# .7th /ir. "&7(0.
Dansas statute of limitations cannot e-pire while prisoner is incarceratedN attempt to recover for cruel and unusual punishment fails on the merits. Brown v. Bigger,
%'' ;.'d "('3 ."(th /ir. "&7(0.
Alabama 9istrict /ourt finds serious violations of inmate's rights at a county jail. Aicholson v. /hoctaw /o., )&7 ;.+upp. '&3 .+.9. Ala. "&7(0.
Prisoner's civil rights action challenging conditions of his confinement dismissed by Pennsylvania 9istrict court. 1unnell v. obinson, )7% ;.+upp. "'%3 ."&7(0.
4eorgia +upreme /ourt rules that prison construction cannot be enjoined. Evans v. <ust Cpen 4overnment, '3" +.E.'d 3)% .4a. "&6&0.
>nmate barred from bringing suit on issues already the subject of class actionN release from prison improper remedy under civil rights act. /rawford v. Bell, 3&& ;.'d
7&( .&th /ir. "&6&0.
;or earlier discussions seeM Aadeau v. =elgemoe, 3%" ;.'d )"" ."st /ir. "&660N +uits v. ,ynch, )#6 ;.+upp. #7 .9. Dan. "&660N <ames v. :allace, )(% ;.+upp. #"7
.5.9. Ala. "&6%0N odriguez v. <iminez, )(& ;.+upp. 37' .9. Puerto ico "&6%0N =amilton v. +chiro, ##7 ;.+upp. "("% .E.9. ,a. "&6(0.
Bugs and vermin
A federal judge has denied a county's motion to dismiss a federal civil rights lawsuit by a pretrial detainee at its jail see2ing damages for injuries he suffered when a
rat allegedly came out of a hole in his mattress and bit his penis, causing him se-ual dysfunction and emotional distress. 1he plaintiff argued that the county acted with
@deliberate indifference to his health and safety in failing to adequately protect him from rodents.@ 1here were allegedly eleven prisoner complaints about rodents in the
two years prior to the incident, as well as 3( prisoners signing a petition requesting action against the presence of rodents, and the plaintiff claimed that adequate
corrective measures were not ta2en. 1he trial judge agreed that the allegations were sufficient to survive summary judgment. +olomon v. Aassau /ounty, !(7$/E$6(#,
*.+. 9ist. /t. .E.9.A.F. <an. 6, '(""0.
A prisoner established the objective component of an Eighth Amendment claim by alleging that his cell was infested with thousands of fire ants and that he was
bitten by them over '(( times, suffering sizzling pain, burning, pus$filled blisters, and swollen appendages. 1he defendants were also properly denied qualified
immunity, as he had alleged facts from which it could reasonably be concluded that they acted with deliberate indifference to these conditions, failing to transfer him to
a new cell or to provide him with ant 2illing insecticide even after he was treated for the bites. Benshoof v. ,ayton, !(&$%()), '((& *.+. App. ,e-is '#%3( .*npub.
"(th /ir.0.
/ourt rejects =>E$positive detainee's claims that his conditions of confinement violated his rights and that the denial of his requests to be transferred from an old to a
new building in the facility constituted deliberate indifference to those conditions. :hile the detainee claimed that his cell in an older building was hot, had a foul odor,
and had bugs and paint chips, a number of reasons were set forth for the denial of the transfer request, including his failure to participate in se-$offender treatment, his
=>E$positive status, and his past se-ual interactions with other prisoners. 1he court ruled that the transfer requests were properly denied, and also that the conditions of
the detainee's confinement could not reasonably be found to be serious enough to establish an Eighth Amendment violation. +ain v. :ood, Ao. (%$#&"&, '((7 *.+. App.
,e-is ##( .6th /ir.0.
/ounty jail inmate's claim that he was forced to sleep on a mattress on the floor in a cold cell for si- days that was regularly sprayed with insecticides was not
sufficiently serious to state a claim for a violation of his constitutional rights. :ells v. <efferson /ounty +heriff 9epartment, !("$#363, #3 ;ed. App-. ")' .%th /ir.
'(('0. KAIL
Prisoner failed to show unconstitutional county jail conditions by alleging that his single blan2et was inadequate to 2eep him warm as he slept on a mattress on the
floor and that coc2roaches climbed on him while he slept. :ells v. <efferson /ounty +heriff 9epartment, Ao. /'$(($((66, "3& ;. +upp. 'd "((' .+.9. Chio '(("0.
KAIL
;ederal court should not have granted summary judgment to prison officials on inmate's suit claiming @subhuman conditions@ of confinement, given inmate's
detailed affidavit alleging the presence of filth, rodents, inadequate heating, undrin2able water containing blac2 worms that turned into small blac2 flies, etc. <ac2son v.
9uc2worth, &33 ;.'d '" .6th /ir. "&&'0.
Prisoner stated constitutional claim by alleging he was placed in cell with no hot water, no ventilation, and a mattress infested with bugs, as well as punitive solitary
confinement for no stated reason. :illiams v. :hite, 7&6 ;.'d &)' .7th cir. "&&(0.
>nsects in food not grounds for liability. 9annenman v. +choemehl, %(" ;.+upp. "("6 .E.9. 5o. "&730.
Cleaning Supplies, soap, denial of toot!rus or tootpaste
A prisoner who served almost '7 months in a si-$man cell claimed that conditions there constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth
Amendment. =is claims were plausible that he was deprived of the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities and subjected him to unreasonable health and safety
ris2s because of inadequate space and ventilation, stifling heat in summer and freezing cold in winter, unsanitary conditions, including urine and feces on the floor, too
narrow a mattress, insufficient cleaning supplies, and noisy crowded conditions ma2ing sleep difficult and putting him at constant ris2 of violence from his cellmates.
/laims against some defendants were rejected, but allowed to proceed against others, with qualified immunity issues to be resolved after further facts were determined.
:al2er v. +chult, !"'$"7(%, '("# *.+. App. ,e-is "(#&6 .'nd /ir.0.
A pretrial detainee claimed that his conditions of confinement at a county jail were unconstitutional, and that the sheriff was deliberately indifferent to his medical
needs for an injury to his leg. 1he conditions complained of included poor sanitation and hygiene alongside lac2 of heat and bedding, bloc2ed ventilation,
overcrowding, and inadequate recreation. 1hese conditions, he argued, together with a failure to provide detainees with a way to clean themselves with running water or
cleaning supplies, stated a claim for relief. =e said that three doctors told him that his leg infection was the result of the unsanitary conditions. =is claim for medical
indifference was rejected, since he received ongoing observation, medication, and medical attention, but the federal appeals court ordered further proceedings on his
unconstitutional conditions of confinement claim. Budd v. 5otley, !""$#)'3, '("# *.+. App. ,e-is %336 .6th /ir.0.
A prisoner complained that, for three days, liquid seeped through vent holes in the cinder bloc2 wall of his cell onto the floor. =e failed to show that this condition
violated his constitutional rights, as the jail administrator responded promptly to his complaints, the incident did not last long, and cleaning materials were made
available. =oneycutt v. ingold, !"($%(66, '("( *.+. App. ,e-is '(#67 .*npub. "(th /ir.0.
A pretrial detainee failed to show that his supposedly adverse reaction to =9J Aeutral, a cleaning product used at the county jail, involved a serious medical need
for purposes of trying to establish that the defendants acted with deliberate indifference in violation of his constitutional rights. 1he prisoner, who was ta2ing medication
for asthma, alleged that e-posure to the cleaning product caused him to @cough up blood.@ 1he record indicated that a reasonable jury could find that the prisoner did
not show that a physician or other medical personnel had diagnosed him with a medical condition that required treatment while he was detained. An e-amination of the
prisoner revealed only some nasal drainage, and otherwise found him in normal condition, with an instruction that he should move away from where the cleaning
products were being used. :hile one doctor later stated an opinion that chemicals used at the jail caused medical problems for the prisoner, a competing e-pert rejected
the diagnosis of asthma, and found no evidence of pulmonary fibrosis in a /1 scan. 1he jury thus reasonably determined that the prisoner failed to establish a serious
medical need while incarcerated. /hristian v. :agner, !(&$')"6, '("( *.+. App. ,e-is '"%(&.7th /ir.0.
A prisoner's federal civil rights lawsuit over prison conditions should not have been dismissed as he adequately alleged both the objective and subjective components
of an Eighth Amendment violation in asserting that he was completely denied a number of hygiene supplies and lac2ed toothpaste, in particular, for ##6 days, in
addition to which the defendants were allegedly aware of this and did not act to remedy the problem. ;lanory v. Bonn, !(&$""%", '("( *.+. App. ,e-is &'%6 .%th /ir.0.
Prison officials promptly remedied inmate's complaints about a soiled mattress and his placement in a cell with a transparent plastic shield. =is other complaints
about cell conditions, including denying him his chosen cleaning materials, one occasion on which the cell bloc2 flooded, and the passing to him of a toilet brush
through the same cell door slot used to pass wrapped food did not amount to constitutional violations, but were instead minor inconveniences that were part of prison
life. :esolows2i v. Damas, (#$/E$%)(3, '((7 *.+. 9ist. ,e-is &&'%# .:.9.A.F.0.
:hen none of the individual prison conditions an inmate complained of involved the deprivation of a human need, the court need not consider whether these
conditions @in combination@ violated his constitutional rights. ,ucero v. 5esa /ounty +heriff's 9ept., Ao. (7$"(%7, '((7 *.+. App. ,e-is ')%#( .*npub. "(th /ir.0.
;ederal appeals court overturns dismissal of prisoner's lawsuit alleging that prison practices and regulations resulted, after he paid costs for constitutionally protected
litigation, in the inmate being without the funds to buy needed hygiene products, and that the defendants acted with deliberate indifference in failing to provide him with
such hygiene products for a prolonged period of time. 1he appeals court rejected that trial court's belief that the issue simply amounted to the prisoner's own decision as
how to spend his limited funds. Preliminary injunctive relief, however, was denied. :hitington v. Crtiz, Ao. (6$")'3, '((& *.+. App. ,e-is %3" .*npub. "(th /ir.0.
Prisoner's allegation that guards, for two wee2s, without any e-planation, rejected his requests for @basic@ cleaning supplies, despite cell conditions that included
human waste, filth, and a heavy infestation of roaches, stated a viable Eighth Amendment claim, as did his contention that he was not provided with more than a thin
blan2et when his unheated cell was e-posed to @frigid@ air in Aovember. A claim for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, however, was not viable, since
the symptoms he described amounted to a @common cold,@ which did not indicate a serious medical need. :heeler v. :al2er, Ao. (7$"7&7, '((7 *.+. App. ,e-is '3)#)
.*npub. 6th /ir.0.
Pretrial detainee failed to show that county sheriff was deliberately indifferent to detention officers' alleged refusal to supply him with disinfectants or cleaning
supplies to remove feces from his toilet and the floor of his cell. >n fact, he did not even claim that the sheriff was aware of these actions. 4alloway v. :hetsel, Ao. (#$
%'#&, "') ;ed. App-. %"6 ."(th /ir. '((30. KAIL
Pre$trial detainee's claim that he was deprived of a toothbrush, clean clothes, and shower shoes when he arrived at a county jail, and was forced to sleep on the floor
as the third person in a two$person cell, was insufficient to show a violation of his constitutional rights. /alhoun v. 1homas, Ao. 'M('cv""36, #%( ;. +upp. 'd "'%)
.5.9. Ala. '((30. KAIL
Pre$trial detainees who asserted that they were forced to breathe air filled with fiberglass while in county jail adequately stated a claim for deliberate indifference to
their health or safety against the county sheriff. 9enial of toothpaste for an e-tended period of time could also violate a detainee's rights because of the possible
consequences of poor dental hygiene. Board v. ;arnham, Ao. (#$'%'7, '((3 *.+. App. ,e-is "(" .6th /ir. '((30. K'((3 <B ;ebL
An eight$day deprivation of hygiene products was not serious enough to constitute a violation of the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual
punishment. 9opp v. :. 9ist. of C2la., !()$%(%3, "(3 ;ed. App-. '3& ."(th /ir. '(()0. KAIL
Prison officials' actions in depriving prisoner of all clothing, toiletries and property in his cell e-cept for one pair of undershorts after he engaged in at least si-teen
disciplinary violations, many involving throwing of drin2s, soup, spit, urine or feces at officers near his cell, were not a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights, but
were @proportionally targeted@ at his misconduct. Additionally, any alleged deprivation of toilet paper was not deliberately indifferent, but negligent and inadvertent,
and at worst, he was allowed one roll of such paper for a nine$day period. 1rammell v. Deane, Ao. ("$(('3, ##7 ;.#d "33 .'nd /ir. '((#0. KAIL
Prisoner's claim that he was confined for four nights and five days in a stripped basement inta2e cell with no personal hygiene items, no cleaning supplies, and
minimal clothing and bedding did not suffice to show a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights against cruel and unusual punishment. Estrada v. Druse, Ao. ("$"#7"
#7 ;ed. App-. )&7 ."(th /ir. '(('0. KAIL
;ilthy jail cell did not violate rights of either convicted inmate or pretrial detainee who was his cellmate when they were furnished with adequate cleaning supplies
within twenty$four hours of being transferred into the cell. :hitnac2 v. 9ouglas /o., "% ; #d &3) .7th /ir. "&&)0.
;orty$five minutes a wee2 of out of cell individual e-ercise did not violate prisoner's Eighth Amendment rightsN prisoner could not complain of @unsanitary@ cell
when he was regularly furnished with cleaning supplies but never too2 the opportunity to use them to clean his own cell. :ishon v. 4ammon, &67 ;.'d ))% .7th /ir.
"&&'0.
;ailure to supply toilet paper, soap, toothbrush or toothpaste was not cruel and unusual punishment. =arris v. ;leming, 7#& ;.'d "'#' .6th /ir. "&770.
/laims alleging denial of deodorant, soap, and shampoo present no constitional violations and cannot be brought in federal courtN remedy lies in state court. 1homas
v. +mith, 33& ;.+upp. ''# .:.9. A.F. "&7#0.
Cloting, soes, and prote"tive gear
A prisoner failed to show that his Eighth Amendment rights were violated by conditions in isolation, where he was placed for disciplinary reasons. :hile he had the
@barest@ of clothing, there was no indication that this or the temperature of his cell endangered his health or safety. 1here was evidence to show that he received
adequate shelter, medical care, and nutrition while in isolation. 4uinn v. ispoli, !(7$)'7", '((& *.+. App. ,e-is 73%% .*npub. #rd /ir.0.
Pre$trial detainee's claim that he was deprived of a toothbrush, clean clothes, and shower shoes when he arrived at a county jail, and was forced to sleep on the floor
as the third person in a two$person cell, was insufficient to show a violation of his constitutional rights. /alhoun v. 1homas, Ao. 'M('cv""36, #%( ;. +upp. 'd "'%)
.5.9. Ala. '((30. KAIL
1e-as prisoner's claim that prison officials acted with deliberate indifference to his health and safety during the winter of "&&&$'((( by denying him adequate
clothing and shelter was frivolous, based on a prior federal appeals court decision concerning almost identical claims against some of the same defendants, and rejecting
those claims, :inthrow v. =eaton, %6 ;ed. App-. '3' .3th /ir. '((#0. 1he prior decision, however, did not bar his claims concerning a subsequent winter, that of '((($
'((", since it did not determine that the defendants, some old and some new, @could not have acted with deliberate indifference at a later date.@ 1he dismissal of claims
concerning the winter of '((($'((" was therefore vacated. :inthrow v. 4arcia, Ao. ()$)()76, ""% ;ed. App-. 3') .3th /ir. '(()0. KAIL
Prisoner's complaint about being compelled to wor2 in cold weather without warm clothing, or in hot, humid weather despite his high blood pressure did not qualify
as a claim of imminent danger of serious physical harm coming under an e-ception to the @three stri2es@ rule of the Prison ,itigation eform Act barring access to
courts as a pauper following the filing of three or more frivolous lawsuits. 5artin v. +helton, Ao. ('$'66(, #"& ;.#d "()7 .7th /ir. '((#0. K'((# <B <unL
;ive$hour barefoot detention in a cell without a toilet was not a sufficiently serious deprivation to constitute cruel and unusual punishment or violation of due process
rights of pre$trial detainee. ,edbetter v. /ity of 1ope2a, !('$#'(', '((# *.+. App. ,e-is '"#) ."(th /ir.0. K'((# <B 5ar.L
Admission of hearsay evidence that psychiatrist diagnosed plaintiff prisoner as fa2ing the mental trauma he claimed to have sustained as a result of his solitary
confinement without clothing or sustained access to running water was improper. Prisoner was therefore entitled to a new trial in his civil rights lawsuit alleging a
violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. 5ahone v. ,ehman, !('$#3%'', #)6 ;.#d ""6( .&th /ir. '((#0. KAIL
Prison officials' actions in depriving prisoner of all clothing, toiletries and property in his cell e-cept for one pair of undershorts after he engaged in at least si-teen
disciplinary violations, many involving throwing of drin2s, soup, spit, urine or feces at officers near his cell, were not a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights, but
were @proportionally targeted@ at his misconduct. Additionally, any alleged deprivation of toilet paper was not deliberately indifferent, but negligent and inadvertent,
and at worst, he was allowed one roll of such paper for a nine$day period. 1rammell v. Deane, Ao. ("$(('3, ##7 ;.#d "33 .'nd /ir. '((#0. KAIL
Prisoner's claim that he was confined for four nights and five days in a stripped basement inta2e cell with no personal hygiene items, no cleaning supplies, and
minimal clothing and bedding did not suffice to show a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights against cruel and unusual punishment. Estrada v. Druse, Ao. ("$"#7"
#7 ;ed. App-. )&7 ."(th /ir. '(('0. KAIL
'&&M"%& Prisoner who was allegedly e-posed to raw sewage in the course of her wor2 assignment failed to show that correctional officials acted with deliberate
indifferenceN even if she was correct that protective clothing issued was inadequate, nothing showed that defendants 2new that before she complained. +hannon v.
4raves, Ao. (($ #('&, '36 ;.#d ""%) ."(th /ir. '(("0.
'6&M#7 Deeping prisoners outdoors overnight in cold weather with no blan2ets or jac2ets, no heat, and no sanitary arrangements for toilets, etc. while telling them
they had to stay within a small space or be shot for attempting to escape constituted cruel and unusual punishmentN defendant warden and assistant warden were not
entitled to qualified immunity for ordering a @sleep$out@ in these conditions. Palmer v. <ohnson, Ao. &7$3(3&3, "&# ;.#d #)% .3th /ir. "&&&0.
')3M6" Prisoner who weighed ##( pounds did not suffer cruel and unusual punishment when prison was unable to furnish him with two pairs of pants which fit him,
and as a result he sometimes had to wear ill$fitting, dirty, or torn clothing. Foung v. Ber2s /o. Prison, &)( ;.+upp. "'" .E.9. Pa. "&&%0.
'36M6' Appeals court orders further proceedings on question of whether e-treme cold in prisoner's cell was an Eighth Amendment violation and whether prison
clothing and bedding was adequate to protect him against the temperature which caused ice to form on the walls of his cell. 9i-on v. 4odinez, "") ;.#d %)( .6th /ir.
"&&60.
Cfficer liable for 863 each to four prisoners he forced to e-ercise outside without gloves or hats in subfreezing weather. 4ordon .v ;aber, &6# ;.'d %7% .7th /ir.
"&&'0.
/onfining inmate in outdoor recreation area, wet and na2ed, for less than two hours while restoring order in cell unit, did not constitute cruel and unusual
punishment. ;riends v. 5oore, 66% ;.+upp. "#7' .E.9. 5o. "&&"0.
*se of in$cell restraints, restraints in showers, controlled feeding status, confiscation of clothing, and lac2 of out$of$cell e-ercise opportunity for inmate in
disciplinary segregation was cruel and unusual punishment. ,e5aire v. 5aass, 6)3 ;.+upp. %'# .9. Cr. "&&(0.
Dansas +upreme /ourt rules that denial of light bulb and change of clothes to pretrial detainee for two$wee2 span did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
+tate v. ouse, %'& P.'d "%6 .Dan. "&7"0.
Dampness
A prisoner who served almost '7 months in a si-$man cell claimed that conditions there constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth
Amendment. =is claims were plausible that he was deprived of the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities and subjected him to unreasonable health and safety
ris2s because of inadequate space and ventilation, stifling heat in summer and freezing cold in winter, unsanitary conditions, including urine and feces on the floor, too
narrow a mattress, insufficient cleaning supplies, and noisy crowded conditions ma2ing sleep difficult and putting him at constant ris2 of violence from his cellmates.
/laims against some defendants were rejected, but allowed to proceed against others, with qualified immunity issues to be resolved after further facts were determined.
:al2er v. +chult, !"'$"7(%, '("# *.+. App. ,e-is "(#&6 .'nd /ir.0.
A prisoner complained that, for three days, liquid seeped through vent holes in the cinder bloc2 wall of his cell onto the floor. =e failed to show that this condition
violated his constitutional rights, as the jail administrator responded promptly to his complaints, the incident did not last long, and cleaning materials were made
available. =oneycutt v. ingold, !"($%(66, '("( *.+. App. ,e-is '(#67 .*npub. "(th /ir.0.
Prison officials promptly remedied inmate's complaints about a soiled mattress and his placement in a cell with a transparent plastic shield. =is other complaints
about cell conditions, including denying him his chosen cleaning materials, one occasion on which the cell bloc2 flooded, and the passing to him of a toilet brush
through the same cell door slot used to pass wrapped food did not amount to constitutional violations, but were instead minor inconveniences that were part of prison
life. :esolows2i v. Damas, (#$/E$%)(3, '((7 *.+. 9ist. ,e-is &&'%# .:.9.A.F.0.
Pre$trial detainee presented a viable claim against two officers for deliberate indifference to inadequate shelter in his cell, which was allegedly cold and wet, with
rain or snow lea2ing from the ceiling onto the mattress on the floor where he slept. +pencer v. Bouchard, Ao. (3$'3%', '((% *.+. App. ,e-is "#7)% .%th /ir.0. K'((% <B
<ulL
#$posure to %a&ards
'&&M"%& Prisoner who was allegedly e-posed to raw sewage in the course of her wor2 assignment failed to show that correctional officials acted with deliberate
indifferenceN even if she was correct that protective clothing issued was inadequate, nothing showed that defendants 2new that before she complained. +hannon v.
4raves, Ao. (($ #('&, '36 ;.#d ""%) ."(th /ir. '(("0.
'73M"#) Cwners and operators of gas pipeline near 1e-as correctional facility could not be sued for alleged Eighth Amendment violation based on lea2 which
subjected ",((( prisoners and correctional employees to e-posure to gas when they were unable to be evacuatedN defendants were not acting under color of law and did
not act with deliberate indifference to plaintiffs' constitutional rights. Abarca v. /hevron, *.+.A., >nc., 63 ;. +upp. 'd 3%% .E.9. 1e-. "&&&0.
'ire Safet(
Allegation that >ndiana prison cells in special detention unit were @very small@ and that prisoners were denied out of cell recreation, along with allegations that the
cells were @filthy,@ totally lac2ed sanitation, and had inadequate ventilation and air circulation systems, along with inadequate fire safety and smo2e detection systems
stated a possible claim for violation of the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Boyd v. Anderson, '%3 ;. +upp. 'd &3' .A.9. >nd. '((#0.
KAIL
Earious conditions, including lighting, fire prevention, and safety ordered corrected. =optowit v. +pellman, 63# ;.'d 66& .&th /ir. "&730.
'ood utensils, food andling, serving "ontainers, and oter feeding "onditions
A prisoner's assertion that he and fellow prisoners did not @enjoy@ the food provided did not suffice for a claim of denial of a basic human need in violation of the
Eighth Amendment. =is various complaints about prison heating, air conditioning, small showers, dirty mops, and repeated playing of 1E shows also failed to show
unconstitutional conditions. 5uniz v. ichardson, !(&$'''&, '("( *.+. App. ,e-is %6(# .*npub. "(th /ir.0.
'7&M% 1he fact that an >A+ detainee awaiting deportation had fewer privileges while held at a parish jail than he would have had if 2ept in a federal detention center
did not violate his right to equal protectionN court orders further proceedings on detainee's claims concerning inadequate food, e-ercise and sanitation in the jail.
Cladipupo v. Austin, "() ;. +upp. 'd %)# .:.9. ,a. '(((0 and Cladipupo v. Austin, "() ;. +upp. 'd %3) .:.9. ,a. '(((0.
+trip status, type of food provided, loss of e-ercise privileges, and use of in$cell restraints in disciplinary segregation unit did not constitute cruel and unusual
punishment. ,e5aire v. 5aass, ' ;.#d 73" .&th /ir. "&&#0.
Alleged intentional deprivation of food stated a claim for cruel and unusual punishment. 4raves v. 9ept. of /orr. Employees, 7'6 +.:.'d )6 .1e-. App. "&&'0.
*se of in$cell restraints, restraints in showers, controlled feeding status, confiscation of clothing, and lac2 of out$of$cell e-ercise opportunity for inmate in
disciplinary segregation was cruel and unusual punishment. ,e5aire v. 5aass, 6)3 ;.+upp. %'# .9. Cr. "&&(0.
+erving of food in styrofoam containers did not show that food was @contaminated.@ 5ali2 v. Berlinland, 33" A.F.+.'d )'" .A.9. "&&(0.
Alleged unsanitary food handling and polluted water states eighth amendment violation. <ac2son v. +tate of Arizona, 773 ;.'d %#& .&th /ir. "&7&0.
*se of @food loaf@ as punishment did not require prior hearingN but @food loaf@ punishment cannot continue after charges are dismissed. *.+. v. +tate of 5ichigan,
%7( ;.+upp. '6( .:.9. 5ich. "&770.
>nmates furnished peanut butter sandwiches as sole nourishment during loc2down suffered no denial of constitutional rights. 4abel v. Estelle, %66 ;.+upp. 3") .+.9.
1e-. "&760.
Pretrial detainee's suit dismissedN occasional food contamination not actionable. =amm v. 9eDalb /o., 66) ;.'d "3%6 .""th /ir. "&7%0.
eplacing dormitories with cubicles possibly mitigated spreading of disease, conflict, and privacy problemsN other conditions involving toilet facilities, food
preparation, and recreation not in violation. 5iles v. Bell, %'" ;.+upp. 3" .9./. /onn. "&730.
>nsects in food not grounds for liability. 9annenman v. +choemehl, %(" ;.+upp. "("6 .E.9. 5o. "&730.
4eneral complaint against food dismissed. /hase v. Juic2, 3&% ;.+upp. ## .9..>. "&7)0.
Appeals court dismisses suit by inmates alleging that prison failed to warn them about adverse effects of saccharin. /ovington v. Allsbroo2, %#% ;.'d %# .)th /ir.
"&7(0.
Illumination and a""ess to sunligt
A prisoner claimed that having continuous ')$hour a day light in his cell was a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. A federal appeals court found that there
were material issues of fact as to how bright the light in the cell was, what effect it had on him, and whether the defendants were deliberately indifferent to that effect.
Assuming that the defendants could defeat the Eighth Amendment claim by showing a legitimate penological interest in the constant cell illumination, so far they had
failed to do so. 4renning v. 5iller$+tout, !""$#336&, '(") *.+. App. ,e-is 7%3 .&th /ir.0.
A /alifornia prisoner claimed that night light in his cell caused him insomnia in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. ejecting this claim, a federal appeals
court noted that there was undisputed medical evidence that the amount of illumination coming from the night light in the cell would not cause insomnia. ;urther, there
were medical records indicating that the plaintiff @had complained of insomnia, stress, and depression before the new night light policy was implemented, and continued
to complain of insomnia and other symptoms after he was transferred to a prison that did not have night lights.@ :al2er v. :oodford, !(7$3%%6%, '("( *.+. App. ,e-is
"7'"( .*npub. &th /ir.0.
Prisoner failed to present a viable due process claim concerning his initial placement in administrative segregation when he admitted that he was provided with notice
of the facts on which his placement there was based, as well as an opportunity to be heard. 1he prisoner also failed to present a viable claim as to whether the periodic
reviews of his continued placement there were adequate, or concerning the adequacy of lighting in his cell, the adequacy of the e-ercise provided to him, or the
adequacy of the calories provided. A claim concerning his medical care was also rejected. =ampton v. yan, Ao. (%$"6#77, '((7 *.+. App. ,e-is "%66( .*npub. &th
/ir.0.
/onstant illumination in prisoner's cell in a security housing unit was not cruel and unusual punishment. :hile the prisoner claimed that it prevented him from
sleeping, it was merely a single low$watt bulb which even the plaintiff agreed was not bright enough to read or write by. :ills v. 1erhune, Ao. "M/E;&7%(3', )() ;.
+upp. 'd "''% .E.9. /al. '((30. KAIL
>nmate's allegation that his cell was constantly illumination could constitute a valid Eighth Amendment claim, depending on how bright the light was. /onstant
illuminate may be a civil rights violation if it @causes sleep deprivation or leads to other serious physical or mental health problems.@ Ding v. ;ran2, Ao. ()$/$##7, #'7
;. +upp. 'd &)( .:.9. :is. '(()0. +ee also a prior unpublished decision, Pozo v. =ompe, ('$/$"'$/, '((# :, '#"7377' .:.9. :is. '((#0, holding that the
illumination of a cell by a 3$watt bulb did not rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation. KAIL
Prison's policy of constant illumination of cell in administrative segregation unit was reasonably related to a legitimate interest in guard security, so that prisoner
could not pursue his claim that it violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment because it deprived him of sleep. /havarria v. +tac2s, Ao. (#$)(&66, '(() *.+. App.
,e-is ")&)3 .3th /ir.0. K'(() <B +epL
'66M# Prisoner's assertion that he was deprived of direct sunlight for over one hundred days did not state a claim for cruel and unusual punishment. ichard v. eed,
)& ;. +upp. 'd )73 .E.9.Ea. "&&&0.
'%"M"#3 /onstant lighting in disciplinary detention cells, preventing normal sleep, might be 7th Amendment violationN court finds factual issue as to whether prison
staff needs to see into cells ') hours a day or whether light switch, allowing them to see in when they must, would be sufficient. +hepherd v. Ault, &7' ;.+upp. %)#
.A.9. >owa "&&60.
Earious conditions, including lighting, fire prevention, and safety ordered corrected. =optowit v. +pellman, 63# ;.'d 66& .&th /ir. "&730.
Dansas +upreme /ourt rules that denial of light bulb and change of clothes to pretrial detainee for two$wee2 span did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
+tate v. ouse, %'& P.'d "%6 .Dan. "&7"0.
Noise
Prisoner's allegations of @small and noisy@ cell, limited visitation, and disparate restrictions on his leaving the cell did not amount to an Eighth Amendment or due
process violation. uar2 v. +olano, &'7 ;.'d &)6 ."(th /ir. "&&"0.
1he levels of noise 5=9 at all times e-cept late night or early morning are unbearably high. ,ong$term e-posure to such noise can cause impairment of hearing, and
even short e-posure may increase tension and adversely affect mental health. hem v. 5alcolm, #6" ;.+upp. 3&) .+.9. A.F., "&6)0.
Possessions
Prison officials' actions in depriving prisoner of all clothing, toiletries and property in his cell e-cept for one pair of undershorts after he engaged in at least si-teen
disciplinary violations, many involving throwing of drin2s, soup, spit, urine or feces at officers near his cell, were not a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights, but
were @proportionally targeted@ at his misconduct. Additionally, any alleged deprivation of toilet paper was not deliberately indifferent, but negligent and inadvertent,
and at worst, he was allowed one roll of such paper for a nine$day period. 1rammell v. Deane, Ao. ("$(('3, ##7 ;.#d "33 .'nd /ir. '((#0. KAIL
ules prohibiting special housing unit inmates from possessing more than ten family photos, watch or hair brush did not violate prisoner rights. 5ali2 v. /oughlin,
33( A.F.+.'d '"& .A.9. "&&(0.
Sanitar( Conditions ) *eneral
A prisoner who served almost '7 months in a si-$man cell claimed that conditions there constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth
Amendment. =is claims were plausible that he was deprived of the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities and subjected him to unreasonable health and safety
ris2s because of inadequate space and ventilation, stifling heat in summer and freezing cold in winter, unsanitary conditions, including urine and feces on the floor, too
narrow a mattress, insufficient cleaning supplies, and noisy crowded conditions ma2ing sleep difficult and putting him at constant ris2 of violence from his cellmates.
/laims against some defendants were rejected, but allowed to proceed against others, with qualified immunity issues to be resolved after further facts were determined.
:al2er v. +chult, !"'$"7(%, '("# *.+. App. ,e-is "(#&6 .'nd /ir.0.
A pretrial detainee claimed that his conditions of confinement at a county jail were unconstitutional, and that the sheriff was deliberately indifferent to his medical
needs for an injury to his leg. 1he conditions complained of included poor sanitation and hygiene alongside lac2 of heat and bedding, bloc2ed ventilation,
overcrowding, and inadequate recreation. 1hese conditions, he argued, together with a failure to provide detainees with a way to clean themselves with running water or
cleaning supplies, stated a claim for relief. =e said that three doctors told him that his leg infection was the result of the unsanitary conditions. =is claim for medical
indifference was rejected, since he received ongoing observation, medication, and medical attention, but the federal appeals court ordered further proceedings on his
unconstitutional conditions of confinement claim. Budd v. 5otley, !""$#)'3, '("# *.+. App. ,e-is %336 .6th /ir.0.
A schizophrenic man arrested for an attempted ban2 robbery often refused to ta2e his medication, bathe or eat while in a county jail. =e was transported bac2 and
forth between a number of mental health facilities and the jail on a number of occasions. :hile at the jail pending a transfer to a state psychiatric institution, he died
from e-cessively drin2ing water .@psychogenic polydipsia.@0. :hile his estate could pursue claims concerning the sanitary condition of his cell .despite the fact that he
may have helped cause the conditions, based on his mental incompetence, there was no basis that any of the defendants were liable for his death, absent any evidence
that they were on notice that he might compulsively engage in water drin2ing to the e-tent that it would put his life in danger. Estate of ice v. /orrectional 5edical
+ervices, !(&O'7(), '("' *.+. App. ,e-is 36'7 .6th /ir.0,
+ummary judgment was properly entered against a prisoner in his lawsuit over his conditions of confinement. :hile there were indeed feces on the wall of his cell,
the plaintiff prisoner was the one who put it there, and correctional employees too2 necessary measures to see to it that both the prisoner and his cell were cleaned after
the mess was created. 1here was no evidence that the prisoner was denied any of life's basic necessities. Ban2s v. 5ozingo, !"($''3&, '("" *.+. App. ,e-is 67&&
.*npub. #rd /ir.0.
A prisoner's assertion that he and fellow prisoners did not @enjoy@ the food provided did not suffice for a claim of denial of a basic human need in violation of the
Eighth Amendment. =is various complaints about prison heating, air conditioning, small showers, dirty mops, and repeated playing of 1E shows also failed to show
unconstitutional conditions. 5uniz v. ichardson, !(&$'''&, '("( *.+. App. ,e-is %6(# .*npub. "(th /ir.0.
Prison officials promptly remedied inmate's complaints about a soiled mattress and his placement in a cell with a transparent plastic shield. =is other complaints
about cell conditions, including denying him his chosen cleaning materials, one occasion on which the cell bloc2 flooded, and the passing to him of a toilet brush
through the same cell door slot used to pass wrapped food did not amount to constitutional violations, but were instead minor inconveniences that were part of prison
life. :esolows2i v. Damas, (#$/E$%)(3, '((7 *.+. 9ist. ,e-is &&'%# .:.9.A.F.0.
Prisoner's allegation that guards, for two wee2s, without any e-planation, rejected his requests for @basic@ cleaning supplies, despite cell conditions that included
human waste, filth, and a heavy infestation of roaches, stated a viable Eighth Amendment claim, as did his contention that he was not provided with more than a thin
blan2et when his unheated cell was e-posed to @frigid@ air in Aovember. A claim for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, however, was not viable, since
the symptoms he described amounted to a @common cold,@ which did not indicate a serious medical need. :heeler v. :al2er, Ao. (7$"7&7, '((7 *.+. App. ,e-is '3)#)
.*npub. 6th /ir.0.
A federal court terminated an environmental order requiring a city to clean and sanitize shower facilities, janitor closets, laundry areas, toilets, washbasins, and sin2s
at city jails, and to monitor temperatures, as well as denying a request by plaintiff pre$trial detainees for additional orders concerning vermin control and sanitation. 1he
jails were not now so lac2ing in sanitation as to violate the due process clause of the ;ourteenth Amendment or to constitute an ongoing violation of detainee rights, so
that continuation of the orders would be improper. 1he defendants had and were ta2ing steps to improve jail sanitation. Benjamin v. =orn, 63 /iv. #(6#, '((7 *.+. 9ist.
,e-is 67((3 .+.9.A.F.0.
Prisoner failed to show that correctional officials violated the Eighth Amendment in allegedly failing to repair a lea2y roof and prison floors. 1he prisoner failed to
show that the defendants 2new that there was a substantial ris2 of serious harm and failed to act reasonably to avoid such harm, resulting in inhumane conditions of
confinement. 4ilman v. :oodford, Ao. (%$"%"36, '((7 *.+. App. ,e-is %('& .&th /ir.0.
Prisoner who claimed that he was housed in an unsanitary, dirty administrative segregation cell for seven days, failed to show that the sheriff was aware of the dirty
condition of the cell when he was placed in it. Additionally, three or four days after he sent a letter to the sheriff complaining about it, his cell was cleaned after being
inspected and photographed, and the sheriff toured the area of the prison where he was housed in order to inspect the cells. 1he prisoner's own version of events show
that the sheriff too2 reasonable steps to respond to his complaint. <ohnson v. Anderson, Ao. (6$"((&3, '((6 *.+. App. ,e-is '%&)6 .3th /ir.0.
+heriff and deputy were not entitled to qualified immunity on detainee's claim that he was 2ept for two days in a jail cell lac2ing a bed and which was contaminated
with human waste. 1here were other cells with beds available, and there was no compelling interest justifying placing the plaintiff in a cell without a bed. =erbert v.
5a-well, Ao (3$#(&'&, '((6 *.+. App. ,e-is ""%( .3th /ir.0. KAIL
1wo prisoners, confined for ') hours in an @unsanitary@ isolation cell designed for one prisoner in which a clogged floor drain resulted in feces and urine remaining
on the cell floor, could not recover damages for mental or emotional injuries in the absence of a prior physical injury. Ale-ander v. 1ippah /ounty, 5ississippi, Ao. ('$
%"(##, #3" ;.#d %'% .3th /ir. '((#0. K'(() <B 5arL
Allegation that >ndiana prison cells in special detention unit were @very small@ and that prisoners were denied out of cell recreation, along with allegations that the
cells were @filthy,@ totally lac2ed sanitation, and had inadequate ventilation and air circulation systems, along with inadequate fire safety and smo2e detection systems
stated a possible claim for violation of the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Boyd v. Anderson, '%3 ;. +upp. 'd &3' .A.9. >nd. '((#0.
KAIL
<ail inmate's lawsuit claiming that the jail had cells that smelled of urine, poor means of transporting prisoners, bad living conditions, nurses with @bad attitudes,@
@unruly and abusive@ guards, and that he was denied adequate medical care was sufficient to give the defendant jail officials notice of the claims against them so that
they could file an answer and prepare for trial. :hile some of his allegations were @generalized,@ they were neither @vague nor conclusory.@ Evans v. Aassau /ounty,
"7) ;. +upp. 'd '#7 .E.9.A.F. '(('0. KAIL
Pretrial detainee stated a claim for violation of his due process rights based on alleged e-posure to unsanitary and hazardous conditions in correctional facility's
shower area for a nine month period. Alleged failure to enforce rules requiring inspections and failure to order repairs performed were sufficient to show personal
involvement of defendant official for purposes of the prisoner's claim. /urry v. Deri2, Ao. (( /iv. )6(%, "%# ;. +upp. 'd '#' .+.9. Aew For2 '(("0. KAIL
Prisoner failed to show unconstitutional county jail conditions by alleging that his single blan2et was inadequate to 2eep him warm as he slept on a mattress on the
floor and that coc2roaches climbed on him while he slept. :ells v. <efferson /ounty +heriff 9epartment, Ao. /'$(($((66, "3& ;. +upp. 'd "((' .+.9. Chio '(("0.
KAIL
'7&M% 1he fact that an >A+ detainee awaiting deportation had fewer privileges while held at a parish jail than he would have had if 2ept in a federal detention center
did not violate his right to equal protectionN court orders further proceedings on detainee's claims concerning inadequate food, e-ercise and sanitation in the jail.
Cladipupo v. Austin, "() ;. +upp. 'd %)# .:.9. ,a. '(((0 and Cladipupo v. Austin, "() ;. +upp. 'd %3) .:.9. ,a. '(((0.
;orty$five minutes a wee2 of out of cell individual e-ercise did not violate prisoner's Eighth Amendment rightsN prisoner could not complain of @unsanitary@ cell
when he was regularly furnished with cleaning supplies but never too2 the opportunity to use them to clean his own cell. :ishon v. 4ammon, &67 ;.'d ))% .7th /ir.
"&&'0.
Prisoner's assertions that he was subjected to a health hazard from rusty water, bad smelling pipes and e-posure to human waste which bac2ed up through the
plumbing stated constitutional claim. Buffington v. C',eary, 6)7 ;.+upp. %## .A.9. >ll. "&&(0.
Prisoner was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment when forced to sleep and live in sewage and foul water in his cellN trial court must determine whether
warden was liable for damages or whether @e-traordinary circumstances@ prevented remedying conditions. 5c/ord v. 5aggio, &'6 ;.'d 7)) .3th /ir. "&&"0.
;ilthy conditions in prisoner's cell $$ including human wastes $$ constituted cruel and unusual punishment. =oward v. Ad2ison, 776 ;.'d "#) .7th /ir. "&7&0.
Problem of spillage and overflow .even though due to inmate stopping up of toilets0 was unconstitutional violation the lea2age wasn't cleaned up and contaminated
beds and cells below the flooded areas. =utchings v. /orum, 3(" ;.+upp. "'6% .:.9. 5o. "&7(0.
Sanitar( Conditions+ So,ers
A prisoner sued over conditions in a facility, claiming that a shower floor was unsafe and slippery, that he had fallen three times and suffered a fractured hip, and that
he had received inadequate medical care for his injuries. Prisoner slip and fall claims, the appeals court held, almost never serve as the basis for constitutional violations
as a matter of law. /laims against two defendants who allegedly ignored the plaintiff's complaints and pleas for help, however, should not have been dismissed. 1he
allegation that a hearing officer ignored the prisoner's complaint about his bac2 pain during a hearing on an entirely different matter did not state an Eighth Amendment
claim. /oleman v. +weetin, !"'$)(("', '(") *.+. App. ,e-is )%)) .3th /ir.0.
Prisoner's claim that he was subjected to @standing water@ in a prison shower area resulting in a fall was insufficient to establish a claim for cruel and unusual
conditions of confinement posing a substantial ris2 of serious harm to his health or safety. 9espite the fact that prisoner was on crutches, the danger of falling on a
slippery floor was no greater than the daily hazards faced by the general public. eynolds v. Powell, !(#$)"3%, '(() *.+. App. ,e-is "(7#7 ."(th /ir.0.K'(() <B <ulL
*se of in$cell restraints, restraints in showers, controlled feeding status, confiscation of clothing, and lac2 of out$of$cell e-ercise opportunity for inmate in
disciplinary segregation was cruel and unusual punishment. ,e5aire v. 5aass, 6)3 ;.+upp. %'# .9. Cr. "&&(0.
/ondition of prison shower rooms did not violate inmate's constitutional rights. 1ermunde v. /oo2, 67% P.'d "#)" .*tah "&&(0.
,imiting inmates in segregation unit to one hour per wee2 for e-ercise and one shower per wee2 constitutes cruel and unusual punishmentN court applies @standards
for adult correctional institutions@ in determining constitutional conditions. 9avenport v. 9eobertis, %3# ;. +up. %)& .A.9. >ll. "&760.
Sanitar( Conditions ) Toilets and Toilet Paper
A former pretrial detainee claimed that she was subjected to unconstitutional conditions of confinement at a county detention facility. +pecifically, she claimed that
she was forced to ta2e medication without food, which resulted in stomach problems and rendered the medication ineffective. +uch a claim, the appeals court ruled,
required e-pert testimony as the seriousness of the possible injury or illness would not be apparent. @:hether a medication is ineffective if it is given without food is
not readily apparent to a lay person.@ +ince the plaintiff offered no such e-pert testimony, summary judgment for the defendants was properly entered on this claim. 1he
plaintiff also challenged her confinement, at times, in @the green room,@ which had green tile on three of the walls and a fourth wall made of glass, lac2ed any
furnishings or stationary objects, including a traditional toilet, but did have an eight inch drain in the middle of the floor covered by a grate. 1he room was used to
observe @people coming down from drugs, violent people or people on suicide watch.@ 1he plaintiff had allegedly engaged in self$destructive behavior. 1he appeals
court ac2nowledged that @the absence of a traditional toilet may deprive an inmate of access to the usual sanitation measures afforded other inmates who are not at ris2
of hurting themselves.@ 1wo other cells adjacent to the green room, however, were equipped with traditional toilet facilities, and inmates confined in the green room are
given access to these traditional toilet facilities upon request. Additionally, in the event an inmate utilizes the drain to relieve himselfIherself, prison staff members were
required to clean the room as soon as it is safe to do so. Patterson v. /ounty of :ashington, !(7$#%)&, '("( *.+. App. ,e-is "&)&% .*npub.#rd /ir.0.
A prisoner with a history of throwing e-crement was barred from flushing his toilet himself, and prison employees were told to flush his toilet every two hours. 1he
court rejected the prisoner's claim that his Eighth Amendment rights were violated when employees allegedly deliberately failed to flush his toilet on the two$hour
schedule. 1he employees were entitled to qualified immunity, as there was no prior case law concerning the issue. ;urther, the prisoner did not show that he suffered
any injury or medical harm because of the unflushed toilet, or that he came into contact with the unflushed toilet water. 1he court also noted that the prisoner did not
argue with the fact that there was a @behavior management problem,@ based on his prior conduct, and that, absent that conduct, there would have been no need for the
restrictions on him flushing the toilet himself. =oward v. 5c/ray, Ao. %(%$/E$(%', '((7 *.+. 9ist. ,e-is ))"&) .+.9. 4a.0.
;ederal prisoner sufficiently alleged that certain prison employees violated his Eighth Amendment rights through the conditions of his confinement to defeat the
dismissal of those claims. =e asserted that he was required, while in a special housing unit strip$cell, to use a trash bag as a toilet and to share it with a mentally unstable
cellmate, and that the cellmates were not allowed to remove the bagged sewage from the cell. Burnette v. Bureau of Prisons, Ao. (%$#(3)(, '((6 *.+. App. ,e-is '7)&'
.3th /ir.0.
9etainee's claim that toilet paper had been withheld from him was insufficient to state a due process claim under the ;ourteenth Amendment when he merely had
been made to wait over one hour for toilet paper and he presented no evidence concerning how frequently such incidents occurred. Beltran v. C'5ara, Ao. ()$cv$(6",
)(3 ;. +upp. 'd ")( .9.A.=. '((30. KAIL
+heriff and deputy were not entitled to qualified immunity on detainee's claim that he was 2ept for two days in a jail cell lac2ing a bed and which was contaminated
with human waste. 1here were other cells with beds available, and there was no compelling interest justifying placing the plaintiff in a cell without a bed. =erbert v.
5a-well, Ao (3$#(&'&, '((6 *.+. App. ,e-is ""%( .3th /ir.0. KAIL
Being forced to sleep on the floor of a prison cell, without a mattress, ne-t to a toilet, was not intended as punishment, and did not violate a pre$trial detainee's due
process rights. Bro2ins v. :illiams, Ao. />E. ()$"'3(, )(' ;. +upp. 'd 3(7 .9. 9el. '((30. KAIL
Pretrial detainee failed to show that county sheriff was deliberately indifferent to detention officers' alleged refusal to supply him with disinfectants or cleaning
supplies to remove feces from his toilet and the floor of his cell. >n fact, he did not even claim that the sheriff was aware of these actions. 4alloway v. :hetsel, Ao. (#$
%'#&, "') ;ed. App-. %"6 ."(th /ir. '((30. KAIL
;ederal appeals court upholds injunctive orders requiring the remedying of @filthy@ conditions, inadequate mental health care, inadequate ventilation, and
malfunctioning toilets on death row in 5ississippi prison, but rejects a number of other injunctive orders by trial court, including requirement of a preventative
maintenance program, as not supported by the evidence or improper micro$management. ussell v. <ohnson, !(#$%(3'&, '(() *.+. App. ,e-is "#7&( .3th /ir. '(()0.
K'(() <B AugL
1wo prisoners, confined for ') hours in an @unsanitary@ isolation cell designed for one prisoner in which a clogged floor drain resulted in feces and urine remaining
on the cell floor, could not recover damages for mental or emotional injuries in the absence of a prior physical injury. Ale-ander v. 1ippah /ounty, 5ississippi, Ao. ('$
%"(##, #3" ;.#d %'% .3th /ir. '((#0. K'(() <B 5arL
Prison officials' actions in depriving prisoner of all clothing, toiletries and property in his cell e-cept for one pair of undershorts after he engaged in at least si-teen
disciplinary violations, many involving throwing of drin2s, soup, spit, urine or feces at officers near his cell, were not a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights, but
were @proportionally targeted@ at his misconduct. Additionally, any alleged deprivation of toilet paper was not deliberately indifferent, but negligent and inadvertent,
and at worst, he was allowed one roll of such paper for a nine$day period. 1rammell v. Deane, Ao. ("$(('3, ##7 ;.#d "33 .'nd /ir. '((#0. KAIL
9etainee in county jail failed to show that sheriff and his deputies were deliberately indifferent to threats to his health and safety due to toilet in his cell lea2ing both
water and sewage when they supplied him with blan2ets or towels to absorb water and a repair attempt was made. ;rye v. Pettis /ounty +heriff 9epartment, !('$"7(&,
)" ;ed. App-. &(% .7th /ir. '(('0. K'((' <B 9ecL
'6&M#7 Deeping prisoners outdoors overnight in cold weather with no blan2ets or jac2ets, no heat, and no sanitary arrangements for toilets, etc. while telling them
they had to stay within a small space or be shot for attempting to escape constituted cruel and unusual punishmentN defendant warden and assistant warden were not
entitled to qualified immunity for ordering a @sleep$out@ in these conditions. Palmer v. <ohnson, Ao. &7$3(3&3, "&# ;.#d #)% .3th /ir. "&&&0.
')#M)" Cverflowed toilet in prisoner's cell which was allegedly not cleaned up for four days did not amount to a constitutional violation for @e-posure to raw
sewage.@ +mith v. /opeland, 76 ;.#d '%3 .7th /ir. "&&%0.
')6M"(3 ,ac2 of hot water, constantly @running@ toilet, and failure of toilet to properly flush for '( day period did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment of
prisoner in segregation unit cell. Aeal v. /lar2, &#7 ;.+upp. )7) .A.9.>ll. "&&%0.
Prisoner's assertions that he was subjected to a health hazard from rusty water, bad smelling pipes and e-posure to human waste which bac2ed up through the
plumbing stated constitutional claim. Buffington v. C',eary, 6)7 ;.+upp. %## .A.9. >ll. "&&(0.
A 3(? deficiency in toilet facilities available for inmates for a period of several months was not cruel and unusual punishment. Patchette v. Ai-, &3' ;.'d "37 .7th
/ir. "&&"0.
;ailure to supply toilet paper, soap, toothbrush or toothpaste was not cruel and unusual punishment. =arris v. ;leming, 7#& ;.'d "'#' .6th /ir. "&770.
;ilthy conditions in prisoner's cell $$ including human wastes $$ constituted cruel and unusual punishment. =oward v. Ad2ison, 776 ;.'d "#) .7th /ir. "&7&0.
eplacing dormitories with cubicles possibly mitigated spreading of disease, conflict, and privacy problemsN other conditions involving toilet facilities, food
preparation, and recreation not in violation. 5iles v. Bell, %'" ;.+upp. 3" .9./. /onn. "&730.
/ourt orders prison to provide flush toilets and running water in cells. 5ichaud v. +heriff of Esse- /o., )37 A.E.'d 6(' .5ass. "&7#0.
;ailure to provide state prisoner with adequate supply of toilet paper was not a constitutional violation. /itro v. Pee2, 3)) ;.+upp. 7'& .:.9. A.F. "&7'0.
Problem of spillage and overflow .even though due to inmate stopping up of toilets0 was unconstitutional violation the lea2age wasn't cleaned up and contaminated
beds and cells below the flooded areas. =utchings v. /orum, 3(" ;.+upp. "'6% .:.9. 5o. "&7(0.
Sleeping A""ommodations, mattresses, !lan-ets, dou!le or triple "elling, and "ell si&e
A prisoner who served almost '7 months in a si-$man cell claimed that conditions there constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth
Amendment. =is claims were plausible that he was deprived of the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities and subjected him to unreasonable health and safety
ris2s because of inadequate space and ventilation, stifling heat in summer and freezing cold in winter, unsanitary conditions, including urine and feces on the floor, too
narrow a mattress, insufficient cleaning supplies, and noisy crowded conditions ma2ing sleep difficult and putting him at constant ris2 of violence from his cellmates.
/laims against some defendants were rejected, but allowed to proceed against others, with qualified immunity issues to be resolved after further facts were determined.
:al2er v. +chult, !"'$"7(%, '("# *.+. App. ,e-is "(#&6 .'nd /ir.0.
A pretrial detainee claimed that his conditions of confinement at a county jail were unconstitutional, and that the sheriff was deliberately indifferent to his medical
needs for an injury to his leg. 1he conditions complained of included poor sanitation and hygiene alongside lac2 of heat and bedding, bloc2ed ventilation,
overcrowding, and inadequate recreation. 1hese conditions, he argued, together with a failure to provide detainees with a way to clean themselves with running water or
cleaning supplies, stated a claim for relief. =e said that three doctors told him that his leg infection was the result of the unsanitary conditions. =is claim for medical
indifference was rejected, since he received ongoing observation, medication, and medical attention, but the federal appeals court ordered further proceedings on his
unconstitutional conditions of confinement claim. Budd v. 5otley, !""$#)'3, '("# *.+. App. ,e-is %336 .6th /ir.0.
9espite a prisoner's complaints, a policy of double$bun2ing did not violate his constitutional rights, nor did one night spent with an @unhappy@ cellmate demonstrate
unconstitutional conditions of confinement. 1he prisoner's Eighth Amendment claims were properly dismissed. Allen v. ;iguera, !"($""%', '("" *.+. App. ,e-is %(&6
."(th /ir.0.
1he plaintiff inmate did not face atypical hardships based on any of the conditions of a Behavioral Action Plan, such as denying him a mattress because of his
attempts to use it to harm himself, so he had no valid due process claim. 1he conditions imposed also did not amount to cruel and unusual punishment, since they were
not punitive, but instead intended to protect him from self$harm, and were regularly re$evaluated. 1he prisoner also failed to show an e-cessive use of force based on an
incident in which guards attempted to subdue him using five$point restraints, incapacitating agents, and a 1aser. Bowers v. Pollard, !(&$"66", '((& *.+. App. ,e-is
'(733 .*npub. 6th /ir.0.
A correctional officer was found, by a jury, to have deprived a prisoner of the @minimal civilized measure of life's necessities@ by compelling him to sleep on an
unsanitary mattress for about two months. 1he trial court declined to set aside the jury's verdict, finding that the evidence presented was consistent with a finding of
deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 1he officer, however, would be entitled to a new trial on damages unless the plaintiff prisoner would
accept a reduction in the punitive damages of 8'&3,((( awarded to 8'&,3((. 1ownsend v. Allen, !(3$cv$'(), '((& *.+. 9ist. ,e-is &&"" .:.9. :is.0.
Prison officials promptly remedied inmate's complaints about a soiled mattress and his placement in a cell with a transparent plastic shield. =is other complaints
about cell conditions, including denying him his chosen cleaning materials, one occasion on which the cell bloc2 flooded, and the passing to him of a toilet brush
through the same cell door slot used to pass wrapped food did not amount to constitutional violations, but were instead minor inconveniences that were part of prison
life. :esolows2i v. Damas, (#$/E$%)(3, '((7 *.+. 9ist. ,e-is &&'%# .:.9.A.F.0.
Prisoner's complaint that he suffered an arm fracture from falling from a bun2 bed in his cell did not show that he had been deprived of the @minimal civilized
measure of life's necessities@ in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 1he defendants, in failing to provide a ladder with the bun2 bed had @weighed the benefits@ of such
ladders against a possible ris2 that the ladders could be used as weapons or facilitate prisoner suicides. /onnolly v. /ounty of +uffol2, /ivil Action Ao. ()$"(7#3, '((7
*.+. 9ist. ,e-is 636' .9. 5ass.0.
1he alleged removal of an inmate's mattress from his cell during the daytime did not violate his Eighth Amendment rights, when he did not claim that he was
deprived of the mattress at night during hours that he would sleep. ;ederal appeals court also rejects argument that serving the plaintiff @food loaf@ violated the Eighth
Amendment. ;urther proceedings were ordered, however, on his claim that cold temperatures in his cell constituted cruel and unusual punishment. Ale- v. +talder, Ao.
(3$#(&7', '((6 *.+. App. ,e-is &&'" .3th /ir.0.
+heriff and deputy were not entitled to qualified immunity on detainee's claim that he was 2ept for two days in a jail cell lac2ing a bed and which was contaminated
with human waste. 1here were other cells with beds available, and there was no compelling interest justifying placing the plaintiff in a cell without a bed. =erbert v.
5a-well, Ao (3$#(&'&, '((6 *.+. App. ,e-is ""%( .3th /ir.0. KAIL
:hile prisoner claimed that he was improperly e-posed to triple celling, hot and cold temperatures, and forced to sleep on a mattress placed on the floor for almost
half a year, with bugs crawling on him, the actions ta2en by prison officials were in response to overcrowding, and where not intended to be punishment. Additionally,
prison officials too2 steps to attempt to remedy the prisoner's complaints concerning the bugs and temperature. 9efendants were entitled to summary judgment. Poole v.
1aylor, Ao. &&$%#3, '((% *.+. 9ist. ,e-is &"&(' .9. 9el.0. KAIL
Pre$trial detainee presented a viable claim against two officers for deliberate indifference to inadequate shelter in his cell, which was allegedly cold and wet, with rain
or snow lea2ing from the ceiling onto the mattress on the floor where he slept. +pencer v. Bouchard, Ao. (3$'3%', '((% *.+. App. ,e-is "#7)% .%th /ir.0. K'((% <B <ulL
Being forced to sleep on the floor of a prison cell, without a mattress, ne-t to a toilet, was not intended as punishment, and did not violate a pre$trial detainee's due
process rights. Bro2ins v. :illiams, Ao. />E. ()$"'3(, )(' ;. +upp. 'd 3(7 .9. 9el. '((30. KAIL
Prisoner's claim that @triple$bun2ing@ in a federal prison resulted in @tension, stress, and fear of increased hostility@ was insufficient to state a claim for a violation of
the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. =e failed to show that there had been a serious deprivation of @basic human needs.@ Aorthv.
:hite, Ao. ()$#)7(, "3' ;ed. App-. """ .#rd /ir. '((30. KAIL
Pre$trial detainee's claim that he was deprived of a toothbrush, clean clothes, and shower shoes when he arrived at a county jail, and was forced to sleep on the floor
as the third person in a two$person cell, was insufficient to show a violation of his constitutional rights. /alhoun v. 1homas, Ao. 'M('cv""36, #%( ;. +upp. 'd "'%)
.5.9. Ala. '((30. KAIL
Prisoner's grievance challenging an alleged practice of @triple celling@ at a +outh /arolina 9epartment of /orrections correctional institution, which he claimed was
both a security and a health hazard, adequately stated a possible violation of his liberty interest under state law so as to entitle him to a hearing before an administrative
law judge. +leza2 v. +outh /arolina 9epartment of /orrections, Ao. '3776, %(3 +.E.'d 3(% .+./. '(()0. KAIL
;ederal court holds county sheriff in contempt and imposes sanctions for noncompliance with order requiring that all beds at jail be off the floor and that other
conditions at facility, including medical care, food services, recreational services, cleaning, and security be improved. 5arion /ounty <ail >nmates v. Anderson, '6( ;.
+upp. 'd "(#) .+.9. >nd. '((#0. K'((# <B 9ecL
Prisoner failed to show that her double$celling violated her Eighth Amendment rights when all she managed to demonstrate was that it made her @uncomfortable.@
;uller v. /ommissioner of /orrection, Ao. ''(7), 7"3 A.'d '(7 ./onn. App. '((#0. KAIL
Alleged confinement of prisoner to a cell with another inmate for '#$') hours a day, without access to wor2, educational, vocational, or rehabilitation programs did
not violate the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, even if he had not committed disciplinary infractions. hode >sland officials,
however, could potentially be liable for deliberate indifference to the alleged ris2 to the prisoner from threats of harm by Eirginia prison guards. ;igueroa v. 9initto,
!('$")'7, 3' ;ed. App-. 3'' ."st /ir. '(('0. K'((# <B AprL
A former >llinois state statute which provided that prisoners should have at least 3( square feet of cell space each did not give an inmate a constitutionally protected
right to such living space. Prison officials, therefore, did not violate prisoner's due process rights by assigning him to a cell with another inmate, resulting in each of
them having less than 3( square feet each. /ourt also rejects the argument that the amendment of the statute, 6#( >,/+ 3I#$6$#, to delete any e-press reference to a
specific per person space requirement increased prisoner's punishment retroactively. =urst v. +nyder, !('$'7&", %# ;ed. App-. ')( .6th /ir. '((#0. KAIL
Prisoner's claim that he was confined for four nights and five days in a stripped basement inta2e cell with no personal hygiene items, no cleaning supplies, and
minimal clothing and bedding did not suffice to show a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights against cruel and unusual punishment. Estrada v. Druse, Ao. ("$"#7"
#7 ;ed. App-. )&7 ."(th /ir. '(('0. KAIL
/ounty jail inmate's claim that he was forced to sleep on a mattress on the floor in a cold cell for si- days that was regularly sprayed with insecticides was not
sufficiently serious to state a claim for a violation of his constitutional rights. :ells v. <efferson /ounty +heriff 9epartment, !("$#363, #3 ;ed. App-. ")' .%th /ir.
'(('0. KAIL
Prisoner failed to show unconstitutional county jail conditions by alleging that his single blan2et was inadequate to 2eep him warm as he slept on a mattress on the
floor and that coc2roaches climbed on him while he slept. :ells v. <efferson /ounty +heriff 9epartment, Ao. /'$(($((66, "3& ;. +upp. 'd "((' .+.9. Chio '(("0.
KAIL
'6&M#7 Deeping prisoners outdoors overnight in cold weather with no blan2ets or jac2ets, no heat, and no sanitary arrangements for toilets, etc. while telling them
they had to stay within a small space or be shot for attempting to escape constituted cruel and unusual punishmentN defendant warden and assistant warden were not
entitled to qualified immunity for ordering a @sleep$out@ in these conditions. Palmer v. <ohnson, Ao. &7$3(3&3, "&# ;.#d #)% .3th /ir. "&&&0.
'36M6' Appeals court orders further proceedings on question of whether e-treme cold in prisoner's cell was an Eighth Amendment violation and whether prison
clothing and bedding was adequate to protect him against the temperature which caused ice to form on the walls of his cell. 9i-on v. 4odinez, "") ;.#d %)( .6th /ir.
"&&60.
;ederal court should not have granted summary judgment to prison officials on inmate's suit claiming @subhuman conditions@ of confinement, given inmate's
detailed affidavit alleging the presence of filth, rodents, inadequate heating, undrin2able water containing blac2 worms that turned into small blac2 flies, etc. <ac2son v.
9uc2worth, &33 ;.'d '" .6th /ir. "&&'0.
Prisoner's allegations of @small and noisy@ cell, limited visitation, and disparate restrictions on his leaving the cell did not amount to an Eighth Amendment or due
process violation. uar2 v. +olano, &'7 ;.'d &)6 ."(th /ir. "&&"0.
/onfinement of prisoner in strip cell without clothes, bedding, or mattress for twelve hours was not cruel and unusual punishment. Porth v. ;arrier, &#) ;.'d "3) .7th
/ir. "&&"0.
Prisoner was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment when forced to sleep and live in sewage and foul water in his cellN trial court must determine whether
warden was liable for damages or whether @e-traordinary circumstances@ prevented remedying conditions. 5c/ord v. 5aggio, &'6 ;.'d 7)) .3th /ir. "&&"0.
Prisoner stated constitutional claim by alleging he was placed in cell with no hot water, no ventilation, and a mattress infested with bugs, as well as punitive solitary
confinement for no stated reason. :illiams v. :hite, 7&6 ;.'d &)' .7th cir. "&&(0.
Prisoner's assertions that he was subjected to a health hazard from rusty water, bad smelling pipes and e-posure to human waste which bac2ed up through the
plumbing stated constitutional claim. Buffington v. C',eary, 6)7 ;.+upp. %## .A.9. >ll. "&&(0.
Prisoner's claim that he was forced to sleep with a soiled blan2et did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. :illiams v. Delone, 3%( +o.'d &"3 .,a. App.
"&&(0.
Pretrial detainee's constitutional rights were not violated by placement in cell with little heat and no blan2et or sheet. :illiams v. 5c/lain, 6(7 ;.+upp. "(7% .:.9.
5o. "&7&0.
Pretrial detainee's claim that he was confined to a cell for ''$'# hours per day for '6 days and forced to sleep on floor mattress stated due process violation. ,yons v.
Powell, 7#7 ;.'d '7 ."st /ir. "&770.
eplacing dormitories with cubicles possibly mitigated spreading of disease, conflict, and privacy problemsN other conditions involving toilet facilities, food
preparation, and recreation not in violation. 5iles v. Bell, %'" ;.+upp. 3" .9./. /onn. "&730.
Solitar( Confinement.Isolation
Prisoner's confinement in a @screened@ cell for eleven days did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. :hite v. Ai-, 6 ;.#d "'( .7th /ir. "&&#0.
Pretrial detainee's claim that he was confined to a cell for ''$'# hours per day for '6 days and forced to sleep on floor mattress stated due process violation. ,yons v.
Powell, 7#7 ;.'d '7 ."st /ir. "&770.
>njunctive relief granted for poor conditions of confinement in segregation, 1oussaint v. 5c/arthy, 3&6 ;.+upp. "#77 .A.9. /al. "&7)0.
5an convicted of voluntary manslaughter could not be placed in solitary confinement and fed bread and water each year on the anniversary of his offense. People v.
<oseph, )#) A.E.'d )3# .>ll. App. "&7'0.
>solation cells constituted cruel and unusual punishment. /ourt authorized to correct situation and award attorney fees against state. =utto v. ;inney, )#6 *.+. %67,
&7 +./t. '3%3 ."&670.
Temperature+ %ot or Cold
A prisoner who served almost '7 months in a si-$man cell claimed that conditions there constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth
Amendment. =is claims were plausible that he was deprived of the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities and subjected him to unreasonable health and safety
ris2s because of inadequate space and ventilation, stifling heat in summer and freezing cold in winter, unsanitary conditions, including urine and feces on the floor, too
narrow a mattress, insufficient cleaning supplies, and noisy crowded conditions ma2ing sleep difficult and putting him at constant ris2 of violence from his cellmates.
/laims against some defendants were rejected, but allowed to proceed against others, with qualified immunity issues to be resolved after further facts were determined.
:al2er v. +chult, !"'$"7(%, '("# *.+. App. ,e-is "(#&6 .'nd /ir.0.
A prisoner claimed that correctional officers retaliated against him for filing grievances by activating a @purge fan@ that caused the temperature in his cell to drop
below freezing for appro-imately four hours for three mornings in a row. A federal appeals court upheld a jury determination that the plaintiff did not prove his claim.
Bibbs v. Early, !(&$"(336, '("" *.+. App. ,e-is 36%6 .*npub. 3th /ir.0.
A county sheriff appealed from a federal court's order requiring him to ta2e affirmative actions to remedy conditions in county jails that were found to violate the
Eighth and ;ourteenth Amendments. *pholding the trial court's order, the appeals court found that t had not been erroneous for the court below to hear evidence on both
rights violations and possible remedies at the same hearing. ;urther, the trial court did not @clearly err@ in finding that air temperatures above 73 degrees ;ahrenheit
@greatly increased@ the ris2 of prisoners who too2 psychotropic medications suffering from heat$related illnesses, and that the food provided to prisoners was
inadequate. 4raves v. Arpaio, !(7$"6%(", '("( *.+. App. ,e-is '"(66 .&th /ir.0.
A Dansas prisoner claimed that prison heat was not turned on during a cold period in late Cctober and early Aovember. A federal appeals court, while finding that the
average temperatures during that time period were lower than the climate data submitted by prison officials suggested, ruled that the temperatures were not severe
enough to ma2e the alleged lac2 of heat an Eighth Amendment violation. 1here was evidence that an e-tra blan2et was issued to prisoners and no indication that
prisoners were unable to wear enough clothes to stay warm. +trope v. 5cDune, !(&$#'7#, '("( *.+. App. ,e-is ""&3% .*npub. "(th /ir.0.
A prisoner's assertion that he and fellow prisoners did not @enjoy@ the food provided did not suffice for a claim of denial of a basic human need in violation of the
Eighth Amendment. =is various complaints about prison heating, air conditioning, small showers, dirty mops, and repeated playing of 1E shows also failed to show
unconstitutional conditions. 5uniz v. ichardson, !(&$'''&, '("( *.+. App. ,e-is %6(# .*npub. "(th /ir.0.
A prisoner failed to show that his Eighth Amendment rights were violated by conditions in isolation, where he was placed for disciplinary reasons. :hile he had the
@barest@ of clothing, there was no indication that this or the temperature of his cell endangered his health or safety. 1here was evidence to show that he received
adequate shelter, medical care, and nutrition while in isolation. 4uinn v. ispoli, !(7$)'7", '((& *.+. App. ,e-is 73%% .*npub. #rd /ir.0.
A civilly committed person sufficiently alleged that conditions in the facility where he was confined were inhumane to proceed with his federal civil rights case.
+pecifically, he alleged that staff members told him not to drin2 the facility's water where he was confined, as it was poisonous, and, unli2e water provided to the
general population, did not meet Environmental Protection Agency standards. Cther claims involved cell temperatures reaching as high as ""( degrees, causing him to
vomit blood, and permanent injuries caused by insect bites and stings. :hite v. 5onohan, !(7$'3%6, '((& *.+. App. ,e-is 7'(3 .*npub. 6th /ir.0.
A federal court terminated an environmental order requiring a city to clean and sanitize shower facilities, janitor closets, laundry areas, toilets, washbasins, and sin2s
at city jails, and to monitor temperatures, as well as denying a request by plaintiff pre$trial detainees for additional orders concerning vermin control and sanitation. 1he
jails were not now so lac2ing in sanitation as to violate the due process clause of the ;ourteenth Amendment or to constitute an ongoing violation of detainee rights, so
that continuation of the orders would be improper. 1he defendants had and were ta2ing steps to improve jail sanitation. Benjamin v. =orn, 63 /iv. #(6#, '((7 *.+. 9ist.
,e-is 67((3 .+.9.A.F.0.
>n a prisoner's lawsuit contending that he was subjected to unreasonable cold and hot temperatures while confined, his claims regarding the cold were too @vague@ to
show a denial of the @minimal civilized measure of life's necessities.@ As for the heat, while the prisoner claimed that the temperature in the facility was sometimes
@uncomfortably@ hot, he did not claim that this caused him any heat$related injuries. 1he court also rejected claims of inadequate ventilation. <ohnson v. 1e-. Board of
/riminal <ustice, Ao. (6$'((#%, '((7 *.+. App. ,e-is "'(3% .*npub. 3th /ir.0.
/ourt rejects =>E$positive detainee's claims that his conditions of confinement violated his rights and that the denial of his requests to be transferred from an old to a
new building in the facility constituted deliberate indifference to those conditions. :hile the detainee claimed that his cell in an older building was hot, had a foul odor,
and had bugs and paint chips, a number of reasons were set forth for the denial of the transfer request, including his failure to participate in se-$offender treatment, his
=>E$positive status, and his past se-ual interactions with other prisoners. 1he court ruled that the transfer requests were properly denied, and also that the conditions of
the detainee's confinement could not reasonably be found to be serious enough to establish an Eighth Amendment violation. +ain v. :ood, Ao. (%$#&"&, '((7 *.+. App.
,e-is ##( .6th /ir.0.
Prisoner who claimed he was e-posed to @e-tremely cold@ temperatures in a state prison failed to provide any evidence that the temperature ranged from '% degrees
to $"3 degrees. 1he defendants, however, presented evidence that the temperature at the time at the prison ranged from %6 to 63 degrees. 1he prisoner also failed to
show that he suffered any injuries as a result of the purportedly cold conditions, or even that he requested e-tra blan2ets or a move to warmer cell. ;urther, his
complaints about the temperature in his cell were investigated, and he was moved to a different cell. Prison officials also replaced certain parts of the prison heating
system. Brown v. Beard, Ao. (6$'"%&, '((6 *.+. App. ,e-is '"&76 .#rd /ir.0.
1he alleged removal of an inmate's mattress from his cell during the daytime did not violate his Eighth Amendment rights, when he did not claim that he was
deprived of the mattress at night during hours that he would sleep. ;ederal appeals court also rejects argument that serving the plaintiff @food loaf@ violated the Eighth
Amendment. ;urther proceedings were ordered, however, on his claim that cold temperatures in his cell constituted cruel and unusual punishment. Ale- v. +talder, Ao.
(3$#(&7', '((6 *.+. App. ,e-is &&'" .3th /ir.0.
;ailure of ;lorida correctional officials to provide air conditioning in facility did not create conditions sufficiently severe to objectively violate the plaintiff prisoner's
Eighth Amendment rights. 1he court found that ventilation and air circulation at the prison e-ceeded national standards, and that e-tra fans were provided during very
hot weather. ;urther, prisoners had access to water and medical attention when needed. 4reen v. +ecretary 9epart. of /orrections, Ao. (3$"%7(6, '((% *.+. App. ,e-is
#'(%' .""th /ir.0. KAIL
:hile prisoner claimed that he was improperly e-posed to triple celling, hot and cold temperatures, and forced to sleep on a mattress placed on the floor for almost
half a year, with bugs crawling on him, the actions ta2en by prison officials were in response to overcrowding, and where not intended to be punishment. Additionally,
prison officials too2 steps to attempt to remedy the prisoner's complaints concerning the bugs and temperature. 9efendants were entitled to summary judgment. Poole v.
1aylor, Ao. &&$%#3, '((% *.+. 9ist. ,e-is &"&(' .9. 9el.0. KAIL
Pre$trial detainee presented a viable claim against two officers for deliberate indifference to inadequate shelter in his cell, which was allegedly cold and wet, with
rain or snow lea2ing from the ceiling onto the mattress on the floor where he slept. +pencer v. Bouchard, Ao. (3$'3%', '((% *.+. App. ,e-is "#7)% .%th /ir.0. K'((% <B
<ulL
+chizophrenic prisoner who murdered <effrey 9ahmer and two other persons failed to show that prison officials at +uperma- facility 2new that the heat in his cell,
the constant illumination there, and the denial of his request for audiotapes to @still the voices@ in his head were ma2ing his mental illness worse. +carver v. ,itscher,
Ao. (3$'&&&, '((% *.+. App. ,e-is ""#3 .6th /ir.0. K'((% <B 5arL
Prisoner's federal civil rights lawsuit against correctional officials for allegedly 2eeping him loc2ed in a cell without adequate heating and ventilation was improperly
dismissed for failure to e-haust available administrative remedies. *nder prison's grievance policy, these issues were non$grievable since they involved many prisoners.
;igel v. Bouchard, !(#$"3%6, 7& ;ed. App-. &6( .%th /ir. '(()0. K'(() <B AugL
;ederal appeals court finds that ;lorida death row inmates' class action lawsuit claiming that high temperatures in their cells violated the Eighth Amendment
prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment did not show the 2ind of @e-treme@ deprivations required for federal civil rights relief in a conditions$of$confinement
lawsuit. /handler v. /rosby, Ao. (#$"'("6, '(() *.+. App. ,e-is "%')% .""th /ir.0. K'(() <B +epL
1e-as prisoner's claim that prison officials acted with deliberate indifference to his health and safety during the winter of "&&&$'((( by denying him adequate
clothing and shelter was frivolous, based on a prior federal appeals court decision concerning almost identical claims against some of the same defendants, and rejecting
those claims, :inthrow v. =eaton, %6 ;ed. App-. '3' .3th /ir. '((#0. 1he prior decision, however, did not bar his claims concerning a subsequent winter, that of '((($
'((", since it did not determine that the defendants, some old and some new, @could not have acted with deliberate indifference at a later date.@ 1he dismissal of claims
concerning the winter of '((($'((" was therefore vacated. :inthrow v. 4arcia, Ao. ()$)()76, ""% ;ed. App-. 3') .3th /ir. '(()0. KAIL
Prisoner's complaint about being compelled to wor2 in cold weather without warm clothing, or in hot, humid weather despite his high blood pressure did not qualify
as a claim of imminent danger of serious physical harm coming under an e-ception to the @three stri2es@ rule of the Prison ,itigation eform Act barring access to
courts as a pauper following the filing of three or more frivolous lawsuits. 5artin v. +helton, Ao. ('$'66(, #"& ;.#d "()7 .7th /ir. '((#0. K'((# <B <unL
/ounty jail inmate's claim that he was forced to sleep on a mattress on the floor in a cold cell for si- days that was regularly sprayed with insecticides was not
sufficiently serious to state a claim for a violation of his constitutional rights. :ells v. <efferson /ounty +heriff 9epartment, !("$#363, #3 ;ed. App-. ")' .%th /ir.
'(('0. KAIL
Prisoner failed to show unconstitutional county jail conditions by alleging that his single blan2et was inadequate to 2eep him warm as he slept on a mattress on the
floor and that coc2roaches climbed on him while he slept. :ells v. <efferson /ounty +heriff 9epartment, Ao. /'$(($((66, "3& ;. +upp. 'd "((' .+.9. Chio '(("0.
KAIL
'6&M#7 Deeping prisoners outdoors overnight in cold weather with no blan2ets or jac2ets, no heat, and no sanitary arrangements for toilets, etc. while telling them
they had to stay within a small space or be shot for attempting to escape constituted cruel and unusual punishmentN defendant warden and assistant warden were not
entitled to qualified immunity for ordering a @sleep$out@ in these conditions. Palmer v. <ohnson, Ao. &7$3(3&3, "&# ;.#d #)% .3th /ir. "&&&0.
'36M6' Appeals court orders further proceedings on question of whether e-treme cold in prisoner's cell was an Eighth Amendment violation and whether prison
clothing and bedding was adequate to protect him against the temperature which caused ice to form on the walls of his cell. 9i-on v. 4odinez, "") ;.#d %)( .6th /ir.
"&&60.
'3"M"%6 /old conditions in cell and alleged problems with cell ventilation did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation when prisoner was given blan2ets to
combat the cold and suffered no ailment more serious than a cold. Benson v. 4odinez, &"& ;.+upp. '73 .A.9. >ll. "&&%0.
Cutdoor detention and strip searches of demonstrating inmates in #7$)# degree weather did not violate prisoners' ;ourth or Eighth Amendment rights. :oodbridge v.
9ahlberg, &3) ;.'d "'#" .%th /ir. "&&'0.
;ederal court should not have granted summary judgment to prison officials on inmate's suit claiming @subhuman conditions@ of confinement, given inmate's
detailed affidavit alleging the presence of filth, rodents, inadequate heating, undrin2able water containing blac2 worms that turned into small blac2 flies, etc. <ac2son v.
9uc2worth, &33 ;.'d '" .6th /ir. "&&'0.
Cfficer liable for 863 each to four prisoners he forced to e-ercise outside without gloves or hats in subfreezing weather. 4ordon .v ;aber, &6# ;.'d %7% .7th /ir.
"&&'0.
Prison officials were not entitled to qualified immunity for subjecting inmates to freezing temperaturesN inmates awarded compensatory and punitive damages.
=enderson v. 9eobertis, &)( ;.'d "(33 .6th /ir. "&&"0.
E-posure of inmates to &3 degree temperature, housing of mentally ill inmates with others, and double$bun2ing of prisoners did not violate Eighth Amendment.
:ilson v. +eiter, 7&# ;.'d 7%" .%th /ir. "&&(0.
;amily of prisoner who died from heat prostration because of inadequate ventilation in jail awarded 8"((,(((N +heriff also liable for 8"(,((( in punitive damages.
Broc2 v. :arren /o., 1enn., 6"# ;.+upp. '#7 .E.9. 1enn. "&7&0.
Pretrial detainee's constitutional rights were not violated by placement in cell with little heat and no blan2et or sheet. :illiams v. 5c/lain, 6(7 ;.+upp. "(7% .:.9.
5o. "&7&0.
/ourt denies sheriff access to air conditioning controls. Britton v. Doep, #76 A.:.'d %%7 .5inn. App. "&7%0.
/entilation and air 0ualit(
A pretrial detainee claimed that his conditions of confinement at a county jail were unconstitutional, and that the sheriff was deliberately indifferent to his medical
needs for an injury to his leg. 1he conditions complained of included poor sanitation and hygiene alongside lac2 of heat and bedding, bloc2ed ventilation,
overcrowding, and inadequate recreation. 1hese conditions, he argued, together with a failure to provide detainees with a way to clean themselves with running water or
cleaning supplies, stated a claim for relief. =e said that three doctors told him that his leg infection was the result of the unsanitary conditions. =is claim for medical
indifference was rejected, since he received ongoing observation, medication, and medical attention, but the federal appeals court ordered further proceedings on his
unconstitutional conditions of confinement claim. Budd v. 5otley, !""$#)'3, '("# *.+. App. ,e-is %336 .6th /ir.0.
/ourt rejects =>E$positive detainee's claims that his conditions of confinement violated his rights and that the denial of his requests to be transferred from an old to a
new building in the facility constituted deliberate indifference to those conditions. :hile the detainee claimed that his cell in an older building was hot, had a foul odor,
and had bugs and paint chips, a number of reasons were set forth for the denial of the transfer request, including his failure to participate in se-$offender treatment, his
=>E$positive status, and his past se-ual interactions with other prisoners. 1he court ruled that the transfer requests were properly denied, and also that the conditions of
the detainee's confinement could not reasonably be found to be serious enough to establish an Eighth Amendment violation. +ain v. :ood, Ao. (%$#&"&, '((7 *.+. App.
,e-is ##( .6th /ir.0.
;ailure of ;lorida correctional officials to provide air conditioning in facility did not create conditions sufficiently severe to objectively violate the plaintiff prisoner's
Eighth Amendment rights. 1he court found that ventilation and air circulation at the prison e-ceeded national standards, and that e-tra fans were provided during very
hot weather. ;urther, prisoners had access to water and medical attention when needed. 4reen v. +ecretary 9epart. of /orrections, Ao. (3$"%7(6, '((% *.+. App. ,e-is
#'(%' .""th /ir.0. KAIL
Pre$trial detainees who asserted that they were forced to breathe air filled with fiberglass while in county jail adequately stated a claim for deliberate indifference to
their health or safety against the county sheriff. 9enial of toothpaste for an e-tended period of time could also violate a detainee's rights because of the possible
consequences of poor dental hygiene. Board v. ;arnham, Ao. (#$'%'7, '((3 *.+. App. ,e-is "(" .6th /ir. '((30. K'((3 <B ;ebL
Prisoner's federal civil rights lawsuit against correctional officials for allegedly 2eeping him loc2ed in a cell without adequate heating and ventilation was improperly
dismissed for failure to e-haust available administrative remedies. *nder prison's grievance policy, these issues were non$grievable since they involved many prisoners.
;igel v. Bouchard, !(#$"3%6, 7& ;ed. App-. &6( .%th /ir. '(()0. K'(() <B AugL
Allegation that >ndiana prison cells in special detention unit were @very small@ and that prisoners were denied out of cell recreation, along with allegations that the
cells were @filthy,@ totally lac2ed sanitation, and had inadequate ventilation and air circulation systems, along with inadequate fire safety and smo2e detection systems
stated a possible claim for violation of the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Boyd v. Anderson, '%3 ;. +upp. 'd &3' .A.9. >nd. '((#0.
KAIL
'7)M"'# Prisoner's claim that requiring him to 2eep his cell windows closed for three days and nights was cruel and unusual punishment did not allege a physical
injury as required by the Prison ,itigation eform Act or a sufficient deprivation to be an Eighth Amendment violationN state negligence claim was barred for failure to
comply with notice of claim requirement. +arro v. Esse- /ounty /orrectional ;acility, 7) ;. +upp. 'd "63 .9. 5ass. '(((0.
'3"M"%6 /old conditions in cell and alleged problems with cell ventilation did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation when prisoner was given blan2ets to
combat the cold and suffered no ailment more serious than a cold. Benson v. 4odinez, &"& ;.+upp. '73 .A.9. >ll. "&&%0.
Prisoner stated constitutional claim by alleging he was placed in cell with no hot water, no ventilation, and a mattress infested with bugs, as well as punitive solitary
confinement for no stated reason. :illiams v. :hite, 7&6 ;.'d &)' .7th cir. "&&(0.
;amily of prisoner who died from heat prostration because of inadequate ventilation in jail awarded 8"((,(((N +heriff also liable for 8"(,((( in punitive damages.
Broc2 v. :arren /o., 1enn., 6"# ;.+upp. '#7 .E.9. 1enn. "&7&0.
/ourt denies sheriff access to air conditioning controls. Britton v. Doep, #76 A.:.'d %%7 .5inn. App. "&7%0.
1ater+ Cleaning, Drin-ing, and Bating
A 8)." million settlement has been reached in a claim by a '3$year$old college student who was apparently abandoned in a windowless 9rug Enforcement
Administration .9EA0 cell for almost five days with no food or water. 9uring those days, the plaintiff claimed, he dran2 his own urine, attempted to carve a farewell
message to his mother in his arm with a shard of bro2en glass, and had hallucinations that made him believe that 9EA agents were sending gases through vents to try to
poison him. :hen finally discovered, he was suffering from severe dehydration, 2idney failure, "3 pounds of weight loss, a lung punctured by swallowed glass, and
post$traumatic stress disorder. ;ollowing the incident, the 9EA adopted new national detention standards mandating daily inspections of cells and in cell cameras.
/hong v. *nited +tates, demand notice sent to 9EA, claim settled <uly #(, '("#.
A civilly committed person sufficiently alleged that conditions in the facility where he was confined were inhumane to proceed with his federal civil rights case.
+pecifically, he alleged that staff members told him not to drin2 the facility's water where he was confined, as it was poisonous, and, unli2e water provided to the
general population, did not meet Environmental Protection Agency standards. Cther claims involved cell temperatures reaching as high as ""( degrees, causing him to
vomit blood, and permanent injuries caused by insect bites and stings. :hite v. 5onohan, !(7$'3%6, '((& *.+. App. ,e-is 7'(3 .*npub. 6th /ir.0.
>nmate failed to prove that he was e-posed to unreasonably high levels of contaminated water in his cell. :hile the water was allegedly discolored, and the prisoner
claimed that he fainted after he dran2 water there, a sample of the water independently tested showed that it @met or e-ceeded@ required health standards. Brown v.
:illiams, Ao. /iv. (#$)'%, #&& ;. +upp. 'd 337 .9. 9el. '((30. KAIL
Admission of hearsay evidence that psychiatrist diagnosed plaintiff prisoner as fa2ing the mental trauma he claimed to have sustained as a result of his solitary
confinement without clothing or sustained access to running water was improper. Prisoner was therefore entitled to a new trial in his civil rights lawsuit alleging a
violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. 5ahone v. ,ehman, !('$#3%'', #)6 ;.#d ""6( .&th /ir. '((#0. KAIL
Prison officials did not impose cruel and unusual punishment on a prisoner, in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights, by restricting his rights to in$cell water for
si- days as a punishment after he flooded his cell, when he was allowed access to water elsewhere at least twice per officer shift. 1emporary placement of inmate in a
cell not equipped to accommodate his wheelchair did not constitute disability discrimination when it was done after he soiled his regular cell with feces and urine.
Bec2ford v. Portuondo, "3" ;. +upp. 'd '() .A.9.A.F. '(("0. KAIL
KAIL 9enial of running water in cell for eight days and of asthma treatment for one night during @2eeploc2@ status did not violate Eighth AmendmentN prisoner
received water when required and prisoner's pills and inhaler were in his cell at all times. eid v. Artus, &7) ;.+upp. "&" .+.9.A.F. "&&60.
')6M"(3 ,ac2 of hot water, constantly @running@ toilet, and failure of toilet to properly flush for '( day period did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment of
prisoner in segregation unit cell. Aeal v. /lar2, &#7 ;.+upp. )7) .A.9.>ll. "&&%0.
Prison officials were not entitled to qualified immunity in prisoner's suit claiming they refused to remedy lac2 of hot water in his cell for seven months, while he was
in segregation, despite his many complaints. 5atthews v. Peters, 7"7 ;.+upp. '') .A.9. >ll. "&&#0.
;ederal court should not have granted summary judgment to prison officials on inmate's suit claiming @subhuman conditions@ of confinement, given inmate's
detailed affidavit alleging the presence of filth, rodents, inadequate heating, undrin2able water containing blac2 worms that turned into small blac2 flies, etc. <ac2son v.
9uc2worth, &33 ;.'d '" .6th /ir. "&&'0.
Prisoner stated constitutional claim by alleging he was placed in cell with no hot water, no ventilation, and a mattress infested with bugs, as well as punitive solitary
confinement for no stated reason. :illiams v. :hite, 7&6 ;.'d &)' .7th cir. "&&(0.
Prisoner's assertions that he was subjected to a health hazard from rusty water, bad smelling pipes and e-posure to human waste which bac2ed up through the
plumbing stated constitutional claim. Buffington v. C',eary, 6)7 ;.+upp. %## .A.9. >ll. "&&(0.
/onfinement of inmate in cell without operable sin2 for nine days was not cruel and unusual punishment. <ohnson v. /ommissioner of /orrectional +ervices, %&&
;.+upp. "(6" .+.9.A.F. "&770.
Alleged unsanitary food handling and polluted water states eighth amendment violation. <ac2son v. +tate of Arizona, 773 ;.'d %#& .&th /ir. "&7&0.
/ourt orders prison to provide flush toilets and running water in cells. 5ichaud v. +heriff of Esse- /o., )37 A.E.'d 6(' .5ass. "&7#0.
5an convicted of voluntary manslaughter could not be placed in solitary confinement and fed bread and water each year on the anniversary of his offense. People v.
<oseph, )#) A.E.'d )3# .>ll. App. "&7'0.
+olitary confinement and deprivation of water for si- hours did not violate inmate escape artist's rights. ;razier v. :ilson, )3( ;.+upp. "" .E.9. 1enn. "&670.
PR#S$% L#&#'A&#$% R("$R! AC&
A prisoner bro"e his hand in a ght. 9e claimed that he led an emergency grievance over an alleged inade*uate medical treatment
for his inIury, but never received any response. 9e then was transferred to another facility, where he allegedly told an o'cer that he
had been authori?ed, at the rst facility, to be assigned to a bottom bun", but was told to merely wor" things out with his cellmate.
9e claimed to have led a grievance over this too, but prison o'cials said that he had not. 9is lawsuit was dismissed for failure to
e%haust available administrative remedies as re*uired by the )rison /itigation 0eform Act. A federal appeals court upheld the
dismissal of the claim against the receiving o'cer at the second facility, as the grievance allegedly led had not mentioned that
o'cer#s name nor contained information from which he could be identied. $f the defendants wanted to contest whether the
emergency grievance at the rst facility was led, an evidentiary hearing would be re*uired. 0oberts v. Jeal, L8:18::<, =@< +.:d 6:6
,=th 4ir. 678@-.
A former $owa prisoner claimed that the )arole 3oard and 2tate violated his constitutional rights based on a failure to conduct
annual in1person interviews as to whether to grant parole. &his claim was barred, a federal appeals court held, due to the plaintiE#s
failure to e%haust available administrative remedies before suing. Martin v. 2tate of $owa, L861:=8@, 678@ U.2. App. /e%is >677 ,Hth
4ir.-.
A prisoner who had been released from custody pursued a lawsuit asserting claims for deliberate indiEerence to his mental health
needs, violations of his right to e%ercise his religion, and interference with his right of access to the courts. A federal appeals court
held that his claims for declaratory and inIunctive relief were moot as he was no longer in custody. 9is claim concerning his mental
health treatment boiled down with a mere disagreement with the treatment provided, which was inade*uate for a federal civil rights
claim. 9is claims concerning religious freedom and access to the courts were properly dismissed, as he failed to e%haust available
administrative remedies concerning these issues, as re*uired by the )rison /itigation 0eform Act. /astly, he was properly denied an
appointed lawyer as he was unli"ely to succeed on the merits and was able to present the case ade*uately by himself. 4ano v. &aylor,
L8718=7:7, 678@ U.2. App. /e%is =7: ,>th 4ir.-.
A 4alifornia intermediate appeals court upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit by an inmate complaining about the medical treatment
he received from an optometrist under contract to provide services to prisoners. &he prisoner failed to properly e%haust available
administrative remedies and no acceptable e%cuse for that was provided. &he court reIected the argument that the re*uirement to
e%haust administrative remedies did not apply when the defendant was an independent contractor rather than a government
employee. )arthemore v. 4ol, L47=6;88, 678: 4al. App. /e%is >H@.
A paraplegic prisoner conned to a wheelchair sued, asserting claims for 8@ alleged incidents of e%cessive force against him,
denial of needed medical treatment, and the conscation of his wheelchair, which was then replaced with one that lac"ed needed leg
rests. 9e claimed that, with the supplied wheelchair, he was unable to shower or brush his teeth and sometimes was left lying in his
own e%crement for day. A federal appeals court upheld the dismissal of most of these claims for failure to e%haust administrative
remedies by ling and pursuing grievances, as re*uired by the )rison /itigation 0eform Act. &he trial Iudge was entitled to ma"e a
factual determination without the participation of a Iury that the plaintiE was aware of the prison#s grievance procedure and was able
to access it. &he appeals court found, however, that the prisoner did ade*uately e%haust administrative remedies as to two specic
incidents. Khile he did not appeal his grievances concerning those two incidents, no appeal was available because no actual decision
on the grievances concerning those incidents was received. 2mall v. Khittic", L8816:=H, 678: U.2. App. /e%is 8==:> ,:rd 4ir.-.
An arrestee claimed that after he had been shot, correctional o'cers cuEed both his an"le and his wrist to a hospital bed, denied
him medical treatment, and harmed him by restricting the movement of his inIured leg. 9e claimed that he therefore suEered
permanent harm from a pulmonary embolism which was life threatening. A federal appeals court ruled that summary Iudgment had
been improperly granted to the defendants on the federal claims on the basis of failure to e%haust administrative remedies, because
the plaintiE was not a prisoner at the time thev led the lawsuit so that the e%haustion of remedies provisions of the )rison /itigation
0eform Act did not apply to him. /esesne v. (oe, L881=867, 678: U.2. App. /e%is =7>H ,(.4. 4ir.-.
A detainee claimed that his classication into the general population violated his right and constituted failure to protect him from
harm by other inmates. 9e also claimed that his serious medical needs were deliberately ignored. 2ummary Iudgment was properly
granted for the defendant sheriE who showed that a grievance procedure e%isted and that the plaintiE did not e%haust it before ling
his lawsuit. &he fact that the detainee claimed to be unaware of the grievance procedure did not render it BunavailableB for purposes
of the )rison /itigation 0eform Act, as the detainee did not show it to be Bun"nowable.B &here was no evidence that the Iail concealed
the grievance procedure or that he could not have discovered it if he chose to pursue it. Albino v. 3aca, L871<<=76, 6786 U.2. App.
/e%is 8>H=8 ,>th 4ir.-.
A prisoner#s lawsuit concerning inade*uate medical care, unlawful retaliation, and harassment was dismissed for allegedly failing
to properly e%haust available administrative remedies. &his was based on prison o'cials# argument that his grievances could have
been denied on the basis of his failure to comply with mandatory time limits or complete the grievance process, procedural issues. $n
fact, however, three of his grievances for inade*uate medical care were denied on their merits, thereby constituting e%haustion of the
available process for them. 9ammett v. 4oeld, L8816>:=, ;H8 +.:d >@< ,Hth 4ir. 6786-.
A prisoner sued over a prison policy that he claimed limited the ability of Muslim inmates to perform regular congregational
prayers by limiting the time and space for it. A federal appeals court held that the prisoner ade*uately e%hausted his available
administrative remedies by pursuing a 677< grievance against the policy as rst set in place by an earlier warden. !iven that the
same policy complained of was substantially continued by the new warden in 677=, the earlier grievance had been su'cient to put
prison authorities on notice of the issues involved 55ohnson v. Millian, L871@;<8, 6786 U.2. App. /e%is >H=@ ,6nd 4ir.-.
A prisoner#s lawsuit claiming that prison employees used e%cessive force in removing him from his cell, brea"ing his arm, was
properly dismissed for failure to properly e%haust available administrative remedies. )rison rules re*uired him to le an internal
complaint over the incident within @H hours, which he did not do. &he fact that he discussed his inIuries with prison personnel within
@H hours, or participated in a later internal aEairs investigation of the personnel involved in the incident did not alter the result. )avey
v. 4onley, L871:H=H, 6788 U.2. App. /e%is 6::8H ,=th 4ir.-.
A prisoner who claimed that he was beaten by correctional personnel in retaliation for having led a grievance led a federal civil
rights lawsuit over the beating without rst ling a new grievance over it. &he defendants argued that the suit should be dismissed,
given the re*uirement in @6 U.2.4. 2ec 8>>=e,a- of the )rison /itigation 0eform Act ,)/0A- that a prisoner e%haust available
administrative remedies before ling suit. &he appeals court held that the prisoner could proceed with his lawsuit if he could show
that his fear of additional retaliation reasonably deterred him from ling another grievance. &he appeals court concluded that when Ba
prison o'cial inhibits an inmate from utili?ing an administrative process through threats or intimidation, that process can no longer
be said to be #available.#B &uc"el v. !rover, L8718:<:, ;;7 +.:d 86@> ,87th 4ir. 6788-.
A prisoner can go forward with his claim of inade*uate dental care, assuming that he has e%hausted his administrative remedies
through the grievance process, which was not clear from the record. BA complete denial of readily available treatment for a serious
medical condition constitutes deliberate indiEerence.B &he court therefore ordered further proceedings on the e%haustion of remedies
issue. 3ingham v. &homas, L7>187:@>, 6788 U.2. App. /e%is 8H6>: ,88th-.
A prisoner led a lawsuit alleging that a bailiE at a courthouse assaulted him without provocation when he was transported there
for a proceeding. 9e did le a grievance concerning the incident before suing, and the (epartment of 4orrections submitted the
matter to $nternal AEairs, where it was deemed not sustained. &he prisoner#s lawsuit was led when the matter was sent to $nternal
AEairs. A federal appeals court upheld the dismissal of the lawsuit based on a failure to e%haust administrative remedies as re*uired
by the )rison /itigation 0eform Act. +irst, the prisoner was wrong in thin"ing that the e%haustion re*uirement did not apply to claims
of e%cessive force. 2econd, his administrative remedies were not Be%haustedB when the matter was sent to $nternal AEairs for
investigation. &hird, while the failure to e%haust administrative remedies does not deprive a federal court of Iurisdiction over a
prisoner#s claim, in that the defendant in a lawsuit may choose to not raise the a'rmative defense of failure to e%haust such
remedies, once the defense is raised, the court may not ignore it. Korthem v. 3oyle, L7>1:7@:, 6787 U.2. App. /e%is 6:=<6 ,Unpub.
=th 4ir.-.
$n a lawsuit brought by a former Iail detainee against guards for allegedly allowing other prisoners to attac" him, the lawsuit
should not have been dismissed for failure to meet the re*uirement under the )rison /itigation 0eform Act, @6 U.2.4. 2ec. 8>>=e,h-
that available administrative remedies be e%hausted prior to pursuing litigation, since that re*uirement only applies to current
prisoners, not former prisoners. &alamantes v. /evya, L7;1<<>:>, 677> U.2. App. /e%is 8=<87 ,>th 4ir.-.
+urther proceedings were ordered in a case where a federal trial court dismissed a prisoner#s lawsuit over claims that prison
o'cials beat him during a loc"down, and then used threats to prevent him from ling a grievance, based on his supposed failure to
e%haust available administrative remedies, as re*uired under the )rison /itigation 0eform Act, @6 U.2.4. 2ec. 8>>=e,a-. &he prisoner
did send a complaint to the $nternal AEairs division of the prison, but did not le an administrative remedy form, but the appeals court
noted that the trial court did not address evidence that the prison#s procedures converted all inmate complaints regarding the
loc"down into administrative remedy forms, or evidence that the prison interfered with his use of the grievance system. 3ae? v.
+auver, L7H16===, 677> U.2. App. /e%is 8:;>6 ,Unpub. :rd 4ir.-.
+urther proceedings were ordered on prisoner#s claim that his Eighth Amendment rights were violated when he was continuously
restrained in ambulatory restraints that allegedly prevented him from lying Nat on his bed, bathing, or cleaning himself in a proper
manner after using the toilet. &he trial court improperly ruled for the defendants based only on written discovery materials, which
failed to ade*uately address the subIective mental state of the defendant correctional employees. &here were also factual issues as
to whether the prisoner#s alleged failure to timely le a grievance concerning the issue was e%cused because his restraint, followed by
his :7 days of solitary connement after his release from the restraints prevented him from ling a grievance within 67 days. Komac"
v. 2mith, Jo. 7H1666>, 677> U.2. App. /e%is 6H@7 ,:rd 4ir. Unpub.-.
&he )rison /itigation 0eform Act#s re*uirement that a plaintiE prisoner e%haust available administrative remedies on a grievance
before pursuing a lawsuit in court does not apply to a plaintiE who is no longer conned. &he plaintiE , who was no longer
incarcerated at the time he led his lawsuit, therefore, despite not having e%hausted administrative remedies, could pursue his failure
to protect lawsuit concerning his beating by gang members after he was housed with them despite bearing the tattoos of a rival gang
he previously belonged to. Galdivia v. 4ounty of 2anta 4ru?, 4ase Jumber 7H177>8;, 677H U.2. (ist. /e%is =>7H> ,J.(. 4al.-.
A prisoner#s claims concerning being denied access to religious materials and items needed to maintain his health should be
dismissed because he failed to obtain a B(irector#s /evel (ecisionB on his grievance, failing to e%haust his administrative remedies
available under 4alifornia law. Kilson v. Kann, Jo. 4$G 217;18;6>, 677H U.2. (ist. /e%is H6:8H ,E.(. 4a.-.
$n a prisoner#s lawsuit alleging that deliberate indiEerence to his serious medical needs caused him to suEer an insulin1induced
heart attac", further proceedings were ordered as to whether the prisoner#s ling of a medical re*uest form was the e*uivalent of
ling a grievance, and, if it was, whether he should have or could have "nown how to e%haust that grievance. Killiams v. Marshall,
Jo. 7H188:88, 677H U.2. App. /e%is 66=7> ,Unpub. 88th 4ir.-.
Khile an F"lahoma prisoner led two separate grievances concerning the alleged failure to protect him from an assault by other
prisoners, he failed to e%haust the administrative process on either of them, and did not follow established procedures. As a result,
the defendants were entitled to summary Iudgment. !reen v. 2irmons, Jo. 7H1=7:6, 677H U.2. App. /e%is 6:7<8 ,87th 4ir.-.
)risoner failed to e%haust available administrative remedies as re*uired by @6 U.2.4. 2ec 8>>=e of the )rison /itigation 0eform Act
before ling his federal civil rights lawsuit claiming that his Eighth and +ourteenth Amendment rights were violated by ta"ing (JA
samples from him involuntarily after he was identied as a se% oEender, allegedly on the basis of false information. &he prisoner
failed to follow the established grievance procedure as to his claims against a correctional o'cer. &he defendants were entitled to
*ualied immunity on the prisoner#s claim concerning incorrect information in his le stating that he had been convicted of statutory
rape, since the parameters of any due process right to dispute and correct such information was not clearly established at the time at
issue. Kal"er v. 5ames, Jo. 7=18:6=, 677H U.2. App. /e%is 66@7: ,Unpub. :rd 4ir.-.
Administrative appeals concerning an inmate#s grievances occurred after he had led his federal habeas corpus petition, so that
he failed to e%haust his available administrative remedies before ling his federal action. &he court reIected the prisoner#s argument
that delays in scheduling a rehearing that was ordered after one of his appeals showed that the review process was Bpatently futileB
or Bunavailable,B and that his failure to e%haust administrative remedies should therefore be e%cused. 4artwright v. Futlaw, Jo. 7=1
@7H7:, 677H U.2. App. /e%is 678@7 ,Unpub. <th 4ir.-.
)risoner failed to show that he e%hausted his available administrative remedies before ling his federal civil rights lawsuit.
Evidence showed that he "new that 88 of his 86 administrative grievances were reIected for procedural deciencies, but he failed to
correct identied errors or pursue administrative appeals. 9e argued that he should be e%cused from the e%haustion of remedies
re*uirements because the grievance process was made unavailable to him by defendants failing to visit his cell area to accept and
return grievances. A'davits that he submitted in support of that argument, however, were entitled to Blittle weight,B when a number
of them contained typewritten signatures all dated on +riday (ecember 8, 677; at various locations throughout the county, which
were all submitted by him together on Monday, (ecember @, 677;, which would have been impossible using the prison#s mail system.
&his, the court stated, suggested that the prisoner had created those signatures himself. Oueen v. Mc$ntire, Jo. 7H1:7<H, 677H U.2.
App. /e%is 8H<H7 ,87th 4ir.-.
A prisoner who sued for inIuries suEered from his alleged deliberate e%posure to an electrical shoc" could be e%cused from the
re*uirement that he e%haust available administrative remedies before ling suit when he contended that he was unable to appeal the
denial of his grievance based on a warden#s alleged retaliatory threat to transfer him if he did so. $f true, the warden thereby made it
clear that the prisoner#s overall condition would become worse if he pursued his appeal, which BeEectivelyB made the administrative
remedy unavailable. +urther proceedings were ordered on disputed factual issues. &urner v. 3urnside, Jo. 7=18@=>8, 677H U.2. App.
/e%is 8H<87 ,88th 4ir.-.
+ederal magistrate nds that 4ongress, in passing the 0eligious /and Use and $nstitutionali?ed )ersons Act ,0/U$)A-, @6 U.2.4. 2ec.
6777cc, did not une*uivocally waive state immunity from suits for damages, so that an inmate#s claim for damages against an o'cial
in his o'cial capacity was barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity, and a claim for money damages was not available under the Act
against a prison o'cial in his individual capacity. Fn the prisoner#s claim for alleged violation of his +irst Amendment rights to
religious freedom by denying his re*uest to purchase an an"h cross, however, the magistrate found that @6 U.2.4. 2ec. 8>>=e did not
bar punitive damages because punitive damages are not for mental or emotional inIury. Additionally, even if he were see"ing
damages for mental or emotional inIury, those damages would potentially be recoverable because 2ec. 8>>=e does not apply to +irst
Amendment claims. )orter v. 4aruso, Jo. 8P7<14G1<;6, 677H U.2. (ist. /e%is ;@:@= ,K.(. Mich.-.
Khile an inmate#s claim concerning his allegedly inade*uate mental health treatment focused on his desire to be admitted to a
particular mental health facility, he was nevertheless re*uired under @6 U.2.4. 2ec. 8>>=e of the )rison /itigation 0eform Act to
e%haust all available administrative procedures before ling suit, even if those procedures could not provide him with the precise
relief that he was see"ing. 9e had an opportunity to appeal a decision to transfer him out of the facility after a determination that his
conduct had become a BbarrierB to his participation in the program there, but failed to appeal. Additionally, e%amining psychologists
failed to nd that he suEered from a mental illness. &he trial court properly granted summary Iudgment to the defendants in his
lawsuit. !ruenberg v. /und*uist, Jo. 7H186<8, 677H U.2. App. /e%is 8H68; ,Unpub. =th 4ir.-.
A prisoner is not entitled to a Iury trial under the 2eventh Amendment to the U.2. 4onstitution on any genuine factual issue
concerning a defense of failing to e%haust available administrative remedies as re*uired by the )rison /itigation 0eform Act ,)/0A-,
@6 U.2.4. 2ec. 8>>=,e-. $n the prisoner#s lawsuit claiming that an o'cer had used e%cessive force against him, the defendants claimed
that he failed to e%haust his administrative remedies because he hadn#t led a timely grievance with prison authorities. &he prisoner
claimed that he had been unable to e%haust such remedies since he was left1handed and he had a bro"en left arm, so that he could
not prepare the grievance himself. &he appeals court held that he was not entitled to a Iury trial right to that issue, overturning a trial
court decision to the contrary. )avey v. 4onley, Jo. 7=18@6;, 677H U.2. App. /e%is 88>;: ,=th 4ir.-. Editor#s JoteP &he only other
federal appeals court to address the issue also reIected the argument that there was a right to a Iury trial when there are genuine
issues of material fact concerning a prisoner#s compliance with the duty to e%haust available administrative remedies before ling
suit. Kyatt v. &erhune, L7718;<;H, :8< +.:d 887H ,>th 4ir. 677:-.
)risoner#s lawsuit claiming that his rights were violated by placing him in a cell with a defective ceiling that fell and inIured him
was properly reIected because of his failure to e%haust available administrative remedies as re*uired by the )rison /itigation 0eform
Act, @6 U.2.4. 2ec. 8>>=e,8-. 9is relocation to another cell and his alleged lac" of "nowledge of the names of the o'cers he claimed
to have told about the problems with the ceiling did not e%cuse his failure to comply with a prison#s @H1hour deadline for reporting the
incident. )risoners must comply with prison grievance rules, including time limitations, and there was no showing that he tried to
learn the names of the correctional o'cers during the @H1hour period, or that he re*uested that the prison waive the @H1hour rule.
Khitener v. 3uss, Jo. 7=18@>7, 677H U.2. App. /e%is <=>> ,=th 4ir.-.
A prisoner who failed to led an intermediate appeal of the denial of his grievance in a timely manner, as re*uired by prison
grievance rules, failed to properly e%haust available administrative remedies, so that prison o'cials were entitled to summary
Iudgment in his lawsuit over the alleged sei?ing of legal materials from his cell. 0ohn v. 3eard, Jo. 7=1@H::, 677H U.2. App. /e%is
<8=> ,:rd 4ir.-.
)rison /itigation 0eform ActP 2imilar 2tate 2tatutes
A prisoner#s lawsuit claimed that, after he led a court action to re*uire prison employees to provide him access to the law library,
he was subIected to retaliation in the form of a BfabricatedB disciplinary charge, and found guilty of the violation. &he court found that
the prisoner#s claim was frivolous, and that he failed to show facts to support a claim for unlawful retaliation. &he prisoner was also
found to be an Babusive litigatorB with at least Bthree stri"esB under a )ennsylvania state statute11three previously dismissed frivolous
lawsuits. &he court revo"ed the prisoner#s status as someone able to proceed in the case as a pauper, and also dismissed his appeal.
3ailey v. Miller, Jo. 8;HH 4.(. 677=, 677H )a. 4ommw. /e%is ><.
)risoner#s lawsuit claiming that he was beaten by prison o'cials during a ght involving another inmate and a correctional o'cer
was properly dismissed for failing to e%haust available administrative remedies pursuant to @6 U.2.4. 2ec. 8>>=e,a- of the )rison
/itigation 0eform Act. &he result was not altered by the prisoner#s claim that he was in loc"1down isolation until si% days after the
ght, when there were procedures for late grievances, but only if a prisoner made a re*uest to le a grievance late and showed good
cause. &he prisoner, having never followed those procedures, was not e%cused from the normal grievance re*uirements, and he also
failed to appeal the denial of his grievances. &he court also reIected an e*ual protection challenge to the e%haustion of remedies
re*uirement. Mason v. 3ridger, Jo. 7=18@67;, 677H U.2. App. /e%is <=: ,88th 4ir.-.
)risoner failed to e%haust available administrative remedies as re*uired by the )rison /itigation 0eform Act, @6 U.2.4. 2ec.
8>>=e,a- before ling a lawsuit concerning alleged denial of his right of access to the law library, alleged discipline imposed for
asserting that right, and Binvoluntary servitudeB and discipline imposed for not reporting to wor", as well as a complaint about prison
food being Bpoor.B &he prisoner himself admitted that he had not appealed his grievances after presenting them to the grievance
committee, and had also failed to appeal his disciplinary claim after presenting it to the warden, as was possible under a prison
operating procedure. Anderson v. (onald, Jo. 7;18;:66, 677H U.2. App. /e%is <;> ,88th 4ir.-.
+ormer inmate failed to e%haust grievance procedures during his incarcerations concerning his complaints about overcrowding and
other allegedly unsanitary Iail conditions he was aware of, and therefore could not pursue a federal civil rights lawsuit, based on the
re*uirements of @6 U.2.4. 2ec. 8>>=e,a- of the )rison /itigation 0eform Act. &he former inmate could, however, still pursue claims
concerning inIuries he did not discover until after he was released, including medical conditions, without attempting to e%haust
administrative remedies. As a former prisoner, the Iail#s grievance procedure was no longer available to him, so any Be%haustionB
re*uirement was e%cused. Allard v. Anderson, Jo. 7<18778>, 677= U.2. App. /e%is 6>>:6 ,<th 4ir.-.
9$G positive prisoner could not pursue his federal civil rights lawsuit over the alleged denial of his daily medication when he failed
to le any formal grievance. 9is claim that he sent letters complaining to the nurse administrator and the superintendent was
insu'cient to fulll the re*uirements of the )rison /itigation 0eform Act, @6 U.2.4. 2ec. 8>>=e,a- that he e%haust available
administrative remedies. Murray v. )rison 9ealth 2ervices, Jo. 7; 4iv 8<@6;, 677= U.2. (ist. /e%is =@=8> ,2.(.J...-.
A federal civil detainee su'ciently presented a claim that prison employees acted with deliberate indiEerence to his mental health
needs by denying him needed psychiatric treatment despite his deteriorating condition, which went beyond mere negligence in care.
3ecause he was a civil detainee, and not a prisoner, he was not re*uired to e%haust available administrative remedies under the
)rison /itigation 0eform Act, @6 U.2.4. 2ec. 8>>=e,a-. Additionally, as a civil detainee, his claims were analy?ed under the due process
clause of the +ifth Amendment, rather than under the Eighth Amendment#s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. &he
detainee was conned under 8H U.2.4. 2ec. @6@;,a-, providing for the hospitali?ation ,and continued detention- of a person in the
custody of the 3ureau of )risons when their sentence is about to e%pire or when criminal charges against them have been dismissed
on the basis of their mental condition, if they suEer from a mental disease or defect as a result of which their release would create a
Bsubstantial ris" of bodily harm to another persons or serious damage to property of another.B 9ic"s v. 5ames, Jo. 7;1;=H;, 677= U.2.
App. /e%is 6H6<8 ,@th 4ir.-.
$n a lawsuit in which a prisoner claimed that he was beaten on two occasions by correctional o'cers, the rst claim against the
o'cers was properly dismissed for failure to e%haust available administrative remedies as re*uired by the )rison /itigation 0eform
Act, @6 U.2.4. 2ec. 8>>=e,a-, and a verdict in favor of the o'cers on the second beating claim was upheld. &he trial court did not act
erroneously in failing to give an Bassault and batteryB instruction separate from the Bcruel and unusual punishmentB instruction given,
as the prisoner did not as" for his own instruction or present an argument as to why the instruction given was allegedly defective.
+inally, a directed verdict in favor of a prison superintendent was properly decided as there could be no supervisory liability when
there was no nding of a constitutional violation by the o'cers. Matthews v. 4ordeiro, Jo. 7<187@8, 677= U.2. App. /e%is 6H;8: ,8st
4ir.-.
A prisoner claimed that he was denied two inIections prescribed for treatment of syphilis. $n the trial court, the case was dismissed
based on the representation by correctional o'cials that the prisoner had only led one grievance concerning medical treatment, but
which did not raise the *uestion of the inIections. Fn appeal, the state located prison records showing that the prisoner had, in fact,
led another grievance concerning the failure to give him the inIections, but argued that the prisoner did not complete the
administrative process for that grievance. &he appeals court ruled that the defendants were barred from asserting failure to e%haust
available administrative remedies on that claim, since the late disclosure of the grievance on the inIections did not allow the trial
court to ade*uately address that issue. 4unningham v. (ept. of 4orrectional 2ervices, Jo. 7<1<7=6, 677= U.2. App. /e%is 6;;7H ,6nd
4ir.-.
)risoner#s claim that he was denied his constitutional right of access to the courts because of the failure to process his
administrative grievances was frivolous. &he prisoner argued that this was the case because he was re*uired to e%haust available
administrative remedies before pursuing a lawsuit over his claims. &he appeals court noted that the trial court had assumed that the
prisoner had e%hausted available administrative remedies because his grievances had not been processed within the re*uired time
limits, so that access to the courts was not interfered with. Mahogany v. Miller, L7;1:7>6=, 677= U.2. App. /e%is 6@>7> ,<th 4ir.-.
)risoners see"ing to assert claims under the Americans Kith (isabilities Act ,A(A- and the 0ehabilitation Act for alleged disability
discrimination by prison o'cials ,failure to accommodate and treat his mental illness- are re*uired by &he )rison /itigation 0eform Act
,)/0A- to e%haust available administrative remedies before proceeding with a lawsuit. $n this case, the prisoner failed to e%haust
such remedies before ling his lawsuit, which must, therefore, be dismissed. &he court also noted, however, that because the prisoner
had, in the meantime, proceeded to e%haust those administrative remedies, he could now le a new lawsuit based on his claims if he
wanted. F#!uinn v. /oveloc" 4orr. 4tr., Jo. 7;18<>=6 677= U.2. App. /e%is 688=7 ,>th 4ir.-.
(ismissal of a prisoner#s lawsuit for alleged failure to e%haust available administrative remedies was improper when the prisoner
presented evidence that prison staE members were ignoring his initial grievance forms concerning religious harassment, and refused
to give him forms necessary to continue the process of pursuing administrative remedies. 3ased on these allegations, the trial court
was re*uired to ma"e a factual nding as to whether the prison grievance process was actually BavailableB to the plaintiE prisoner.
Ji%on v. 2anders, Jo. 7;1878:, 677= U.2. App. /e%is 8>;>H ,Hth 4ir.-.
+urther proceedings ordered to determine whether threats plaintiE prisoner claimed to have received from one of the defendants
rendered the prison grievance procedures unavailable to him, or whether the e%istence of those threats barred the defendants from
using the prisoner#s failure to e%haust those remedies as an a'rmative defense to his claim of deliberate indiEerence to his serious
medical needs. Macias v. Qen", Jo. 7@1;8:8, 677= U.2. App. /e%is 8==>< ,6nd 4ir.-.
A grievance which was not led in a timely manner could not be the basis for proper e%haustion of available administrative
remedies as re*uired by @6 U.2.4. 2ec. 8>>=e before ling a federal civil rights lawsuit. &he prisoner did not show that he had
properly e%hausted his administrative remedies concerning alleged discrimination against him based on his religion. (avison v.
Maclean, Jo. 7;186=<<, 677= U.2. (ist. /e%is :=@@> ,E.(. Mich.-.
A prisoner#s failure to hire an e%pert witness to show that his medical needs, arising from his heart condition, were BseriousB did
not re*uire summary Iudgment for the defendants in a lawsuit for alleged deliberate indiEerence to his condition and delay in
providing him with medication. &he court ruled that a lay person would "now that medical needs in connection with such a heart
condition were serious. 3osco v. 4.+.!. 9ealth 2ystems, JF. 7@14G1:<8=, 677= U.2. (ist. /e%is @@:8@ ,(.J.5.-.
A federal trial Iudge acted erroneously in dismissing all claims against all defendants when only one defendant had asserted that
the prisoner had failed to e%haust administrative remedies on the claims against him. 9obbs v. +oreman, Jo. 7;1:@6=, 677= U.2. App.
/e%is 8:<;H ,Hth 4ir.-.
+ederal appeals court reverses dismissal of prisoner#s claims against certain prison o'cials who allegedly interfered with his
receipt of medications prescribed for his mental illness and diabetes. 3ased on the U.2. 2upreme 4ourt#s decision in 5ones v. 3oc",
L7<1=7<H, 86= 2. 4t. >87 ,677=-, the prisoner was not re*uired to Bplead and proveB that he had e%hausted all available
administrative remedies, so the dismissal of the lawsuit on that basis was improper. &he appeals court did, however, uphold the
dismissal of claims against one o'cial whose involvement merely amounted to denying the prisoner#s grievances over the alleged
interference with receipt of the medication, as this did not show participation in the alleged violation of the prisoner#s rights. /arson v.
Mee", Jo. 7@188;>, 677= U.2. App. /e%is 8@8@@ ,87th 4ir.-.
$nmate who completed only one step of a multi1step grievance process by the time he led his federal civil rights lawsuit
complaining about e%posure to another inmate#s second1hand cigarette smo"e failed to e%haust available administrative remedies as
re*uired by the )rison /itigation 0eform Act, so that the dismissal of his lawsuit was proper. Muhammad v. 3eard, Jo. 7;1@H>=, 677=
U.2. App. /e%is 868;@ ,:rd 4ir.-.
&he fact that a prisoner claimed ignorance of rules re*uiring him to le a step two grievance after his rst step grievance had been
referred to the &e%as (epartment of 5ustice14orrectional $nstitutions (ivision did not e%cuse his failure to do so. Accordingly, he failed
to e%haust his available administrative remedies concerning alleged verbal abuse and threats by correctional o'cers. Aguirre v. (yer,
Jo. 7<1@8:@<, 677= U.2. App. /e%is 866<H ,<th 4ir.-.
$n light of the U.2. 2upreme 4ourt#s decision in 5ones v. 3oc", 7<1=7<H, 86= 2. 4t. >87 ,677=-, the plaintiE prisoner did not have to
show in his federal civil rights complaint that he had administratively e%hausted his claims concerning alleged violations of his +irst
and Eighth Amendment rights. $nstead, the defendants had the burden of raising the alleged failure to e%haust available
administrative remedies as an a'rmative defense in their response to his complaint. Additionally, the prisoner was free to proceed on
claims on which he had e%hausted available administrative remedies, even if he had not done so on other claims. &he appeals court
therefore vacated the trial courts dismissal of the lawsuit in its entirety and ordered further proceedings in accordance with 5ones v.
3oc". Milligan v. 0eed, Jo. 7=1876@, 677= U.2. App. /e%is 88=:> ,87th 4ir.-.
)risoner did not have the burden of proving that he had e%hausted available administrative remedies on his claim that he was
e%posed to harmful secondhand tobacco smo"e, and did state that he led a grievance concerning the issue, as well as e%plaining
why he could not provide documentation on that grievance. 9is claim was therefore improperly dismissed. 0oberts v. 3arreras, Jo.
7<16:=:, 677= U.2. App. /e%is H;:8 ,87th 4ir.-.
Khen the reIection of a prisoner#s grievance did not include an e%planation of his appeal right, as re*uired by prison regulations,
prison o'cials failed to meet their burden of showing that the prisoner did not e%haust available administrative remedies, since this
denied him access to the grievance process. &he court therefore reIected a motion by prison o'cials to dismiss the prisoner#s lawsuit
allegedly that they failed to protect him from an attac" by other prisoners. &abare? v. 3utler, Jo. 4$G 217@17:;7, 677= U.2. (ist. /e%is
6:;@6 ,E.(. 4al.-.
$n a federal civil rights lawsuit under 3ivens, when a trial court cannot clearly conclude from the complaint that the plaintiE
prisoner has failed to e%haust his available administrative remedies, or that he lac"s a valid e%cuse for failing to do so, the complaint
should not be dismissed without providing the plaintiE with an opportunity to address the issue. A*uilar1Avellaveda v. &errell, Jo. 7;1
:::@, @=H +.:d 866: ,87th 4ir. 677=-.
)risoner failed to show that he had e%hausted available administrative remedies as re*uired by @6 U.2.4. 2ec. 8>>=e,a- when the
record established that he did not follow the prison#s grievance procedures as set forth in an inmate handboo". Minlaw v. +oster, Jo.
7;1:@@;, 677= U.2. App. /e%is ;<=7 ,:rd 4ir.-.
A federal trial court acted erroneously in dismissing all of a prisoner#s claims after it determined that he had e%hausted available
administrative remedies as to only one of them. Appeals court rules, however, that the claim on which the prisoner e%hausted the
grievance procedure, denial of his right of access to the courts, was frivolous, since his constitutional right of access to the courts did
not include a re*uirement that he be provided with the capacity to pursue a lawsuit for wrongful discharge. 2tephens v. !uilfoyle, Jo.
7;1;8@>, 677= U.2. App. /e%is ::HH ,87th 4ir.-. RJS0T
)risoner who did not specify in his grievance a particular person allegedly responsible for his grievances, and did not le his
grievance against any defendant later named in his federal civil rights lawsuit failed to e%haust available administrative remedies as
re*uired by @6 U.2.4. 2ec. 8>>=e,a-, so that the lawsuit should be dismissed. Additionally, the grievance led only raised one of the H
claims that he later asserted in his lawsuit. Myers v. Metro 2heriE#s F'ce, Jo. :P7=1cv17778<, 677= U.2. (ist. /e%is ;6; ,M.(. &enn.-.
RJS0T
$nterpreting the scope of the Be%haustion of remediesB re*uirement in the )rison /itigation 0eform Act, ,)/0A-, @6 U.2.4. 2ec.
8>>=e,a-, the U.2. 2upreme 4ourt unanimously held thatP ,a- +ailure to e%haust is an a'rmative defense under the )/0A, and inmates
are not re*uired to specically plead or demonstrate e%haustion in their complaints11instead, defendant prison o'cials must
specically raise the failure to do so as a defenseU ,b- E%haustion is not per se inade*uate under the )/0A when an individual later
sued was not named in the grievance, and the applicable procedural rules that a prisoner must properly e%haust are not dened by
the )/0A, but by the prison grievance process itselfU and ,c- &he )/0A does not re*uire dismissal of the entire complaint when a
prisoner has failed to e%haust some, but not all, of the claims included in the complaint. 5ones v. 3oc", Jo. 7<1=7<H, 7<1=8@6, 677=
U.2. /e%is 8:6<. RJS0T
3ased on the U.2. 2upreme 4ourt#s decision in 5ones v. 3oc", Jo. 7<1=7<H, 677= U.2. /e%is 8:6<, a federal trial court acted
erroneously in dismissing the entirety of a lawsuit for failure to e%haust available administrative remedies on the basis of the plaintiE
inmate#s failure to plead that he had e%hausted such remedies on each of his claims or with respect to each named defendant. +isher
v. )rimstaller, Jo. 7<1876;, 677= U.2. App. /e%is 6:;< ,;th 4ir.-. RJS0T
)risoner who failed to show that he fully e%hausted all available administrative remedies on one of his claims, that correctional
o'cials did not give indigent inmates enough money to pay postage on legal documents, could not pursue any of the claims in his
federal civil rights lawsuit. Amos v. Kerholt?, Jo. 7;1:6<H, 677; U.2. App. /e%is :7;6< ,87th 4ir.-. RJS0T
)risoner#s lawsuit claiming that he was se%ually assaulted by a correctional o'cer was properly dismissed for failure to e%haust
available administrative remedies as re*uired by the )rison /itigation 0eform Act, @6 U.2.4. 2ec. 8>>=e when he led a re*uest to
pursue an administrative remedy procedure but did so in an untimely manner. 5ohnson v. 2tate of /ouisiana, Jo. 7;1:7:76, 677; U.2.
App. /e%is 6;@76 ,<th 4ir.-. RJS0T
As long as a prisoner#s grievance gives o'cials su'cient information to investigate his complaint, the prisoner#s failure to identify
the specic employee he claims violated his rights did not violate the re*uirement that he e%haust available administrative remedies.
$n this case, regulations concerning such grievances said nothing about any re*uirement to identify specic employees in such
grievances. Mi"umura v. Fsagie, Jo. 7@186@>, @;8 +.:d 86;> ,87th 4ir.-. RJS0T
Khen an inmate#s federal civil rights lawsuit contained both claims on which he had e%hausted available administrative remedies,
and claim on which he had not, the U.2. 4ourt of Appeals for the 2i%th 4ircuit holds that the lawsuit should be dismissed in its entirety.
0inard v. /uoma, Jo. 7<188<7, @@7 +.:d :;8 ,;th 4ir. 677;-. RJS0T
$n a prisoner#s federal lawsuit see"ing to put forth several claims against prison o'cials based on multiple prison grievances, the
plaintiE was re*uired to have e%hausted each claim against each of the named defendants during the processing of at least one of
the grievances. Abdul1Muhammad v. Memp"er, Jo. 7<18H=6, 677; U.2. App. /e%is 67@<< ,Hth 4ir.-. RJS0T
&he BroutineB dismissal of a lawsuit over prison conditions because of the failure to e%haust available administrative remedies is
not a Bstri"eB for purposes of the )rison /itigation 0eform Act#s Bthree stri"esB rule. !reen v. .oung, Jo. 7@1=6<6, 677; U.2. App. /e%is
8H;H< ,@th 4ir.-. R677; 53 2epT
&he fact that the plaintiE prisoner could not have obtained money damages through the administrative grievance procedure on his
claim that prison o'cials provided him with inade*uate medical care did not e%cuse his failure to e%haust available administrative
remedies prior to ling a federal civil rights lawsuit as re*uired by @6 U.2.4. 2ec. 8>>=e,a-. Additionally, when there was no evidence
that prison o'cials interfered with his access to the administrative appeals process, he was not e%cused from pursuing administrative
appeals from his initial grievance, even if he was confused about what to do after being transferred to another facility. 9ill v. 4halanor,
Jo. >P784G778H, @8> +. 2upp. 6d 6<< ,J.(.J... 677;-. RJS0T
)risoner failed to properly e%haust available administrative remedies before ling a lawsuit concerning an alleged assault on him
by several correctional o'cers. &he prisoner allegedly "new that the grievance procedure was the proper place to complain about
this, and led an initial grievance but failed to appeal its denial. 9e raised the issue also in an appeal of a disciplinary action against
him, but was told that disciplinary proceedings and their appeals were not the proper place to pursue that claim. 0eynoso v. 2we?ey,
Jo. >>14G1;:;H, @6: +. 2upp. 6d =: ,K.(.J... 677;-. RJS0T
(ismissal of a prisoner#s federal civil rights lawsuit was a proper sanction for his submission of a falsied document he created
which contained information that he could not possibly have "nown at the time he represented it was prepared. &he prisoner
submitted the document to try to show that he had properly e%hausted available administrative remedies. 4ampos v. 4orrection
F'cer 2mith, Jo. 7@14G1;7<@8, @8H +. 2upp. 6d 6== ,K.(.J... 677;-. RJS0T
U.2. 2upreme 4ourt rules that prisoners are re*uired, under the )rison /itigation 0eform Act, to properly e%haust available
administrative remedies for their grievances before pursuing federal lawsuits over prison conditions, including complying with
procedural rules, such as deadlines for grievance ling. Koodford v. Jgo, Jo. 7<1@8;, 677; U.2. /e%is @H>8. R677; 53 AugT
+ederal trial court properly granted summary Iudgment to prison o'cials on the basis of plaintiE prisoner#s failure to e%haust
available administrative remedies as re*uired by the )rison /itigation 0eform Act, @6 U.2.4. 2ec. 8>>=e,a-. Khile the prisoner led a
grievance, he failed to direct it to the proper facility even though he was informed of the policies concerning where grievances should
be sent. Additionally, the prisoner provided no Iustication for why he delayed ling his grievance for a three1year period. 2mith v.
4ollins, Jo. 7<18<:<, L7<18<:<, 8;= +ed. App%. H:7 ,6nd 4ir. 677;-. RJS0T
A prisoner must e%haust prison grievance procedures before Bsubmitting any papersB to a federal court, and even if he
subse*uently e%hausted administrative remedies by the time the court approved his application to proceed as a pauper, a complaint
sent to the court before e%haustion should be dismissed, federal appeals court rules. Gaden v. 2ummerhill, Jo. 7<18<;<7, 677; U.2.
App. /e%is 8:>68 ,>th 4ir.-. R677; 53 5ulT
/egally blind prisoner failed to show that he e%hausted his available administrative remedies before ling suit, as re*uired under
@6 U.2.4. 2ec. 8>>=e,a-. )laintiE, therefore, could not proceed with his lawsuit claiming that correctional o'cers acted with deliberate
indiEerence in failing to place him in a single1occupancy cell after a cellmate allegedly assaulted him, resulting in his subse*uent
poisoning. +ry v. Al1AbdulIalil, Jo. 7<188=>, 8;@ +ed. App%. =HH ,87th 4ir. 677;-. RJS0T
)risoner#s lawsuit claiming that his civil rights were violated by re*uiring him to wor" for less than minimum wage and that he was
unlawfully retaliated against for ling grievances was properly dismissed based on his failure to plead, in his complaint, that he had
e%hausted his available administrative remedies. (avis v. 2immons, Jo. 7<1:6::, 8;< +ed. App%. ;H= ,87th 4ir. 677;-. RJS0T
0e*uirement, under )rison /itigation 0eform Act, @6 U.2.4. 2ec. 8>>=e,a-, that a prisoner e%haust available administrative
remedies prior to ling a federal civil rights lawsuit applies to prisoners held in a privately1run state prison. +ederal appeals court
upholds dismissal, without preIudice, of a prisoner#s claim that he had been denied needed medical treatment, based on his failure to
complete all of a privately1run prison#s four1step grievance procedure. 3ias v. 4ornell 4orrections, $nc., Jo. 7@1;:<:, 8<> +ed. App%.
H;H ,87th 4ir. 677<-. RJS0T
)risoner#s federal civil rights lawsuit claiming that prison#s non1smo"ing policy was unconstitutional was barred by his failure to
e%haust available administrative remedies before ling suit, as re*uired under the )rison /itigation 0eform Act, @6 U.2.4. 2ec.
8>>=e,a-. 9armon v. !allegos, Jo. 7<1:67>, 8<H +ed. App%. H= ,87th 4ir. 677<-. RJS0T
0e*uirement that prisoner#s e%haust available administrative remedies before ling a lawsuit over prison conditions applies to a
claim by a prisoner in a privately run prisoner over the alleged conscation of several maga?ines by a prison employee. 0oles v.
Maddo%, Jo. 7@1:<6H7, 677; U.2. App. /e%is <7:= ,>th 4ir.-. R677; 53 AprT
A federal prisoner#s failure to e%haust available administrative remedies, as re*uired by @6 U.2.4. 2ec. 8>>=,e- prior to ling a
lawsuit was e%cused because of the prison#s failure to inform him of a new appeals procedure. 9is lawsuit see"ing V88:.@7 in
damages for personal property allegedly lost during a transfer to a new facility, therefore, rather than being dismissed, would merely
be stayed while the prisoner continued with the administrative appeals process. 4ampbell v. 4haves, L7@1=H, @76 +. 2upp. 6d 8878
,(. Ari?. 677<-. RJS0T
Khile prisoner led grievances concerning his claim that he was illegally terminated from his "itchen wor" assignment on the
basis of his race, he failed to show that he appealed his grievance to the 2ecretary of the +lorida (epartment of 4orrections, and
therefore did not e%haust his available administrative remedies prior to ling suit, as re*uired by @6 U.2.4. 2ec. 8>>=e. /yons v. &rinity
2ervices !roup, $nc., Jo. 7616:8@6, ;78 +. 2upp. 6d 86>7 ,2.(. +la. 677<-. RJS0T
+ederal appeals court upholds inIunction re*uiring the provision of both general educational services and special educational
services for school age inmates incarcerated in Jew .or" 4ity Iails, based on the failure to comply with federal law. )ortions of the
inIunction based on alleged violations of state law, the court held, were beyond the power of the federal trial court. 4ity defendants
had previously waived a defense of failure to e%haust available administrative remedies by stating that no such remedies were
applicable to the claims made in the class action lawsuit. 9andberry v. &hompson, Jo. 7:177@=, 677; U.2. App. /e%is 87;6 ,6d 4ir.-.
R677; 53 MarT
)risoner failed to show that he had e%hausted available administrative remedies prior to ling his civil rights lawsuit against his
supervisors in the prison sign shop for allegedly failing to provide him with ade*uate ventilation, training, and e*uipment. Khile he
asserted that his step three grievance had not been answered by prison o'cials, he failed to show that prison o'cials could not still
ma"e a timely response to the step three grievance. 3lay v. 0eilly, Jo. 7@18:@=, 8<6 +ed. App%. =@= ,87th 4ir. 677<-. RJS0T
0e*uirement, under )rison /itigation 0eform Act, @6 U.2.4. 2ec. 8>>=,e-,a- that available administrative remedies be e%hausted
before a federal civil rights lawsuit over prison conditions is led did not apply to a lawsuit by relatives of a prisoner who died while
incarcerated, as they were not prisoners, and the prisoner, at the time the lawsuit was led, was no longer Bconned.B 0elatives
stated a possible claim for deliberate indiEerence to the medical and security needs of the deceased prisoner, who they alleged was
forcibly into%icated with morphine by fellow prisoners, with the drug causing his death by overdose. 0ivera1Ouinones v. 0ivera1
!on?ale?, Jo. 4$G. 7:16:6;, :>= +. 2upp. 6d ::@ ,(. )uerto 0ico. 677<-. RJS0T
(iabetic prisoners who allegedly suEered amputations because of failure to receive ade*uate medical care for their illness were
barred from pursuing federal civil rights claims when they failed to use a prison#s formal grievance procedure to complain about their
treatment. &heir contention that medical personnel had encouraged them to instead pursue any complaints directly with them was no
e%cuse when no one prevented them from using the grievance procedure. !ibson v. Keber, Jo. 7@1:>:6, @:8 +.:d ::> ,Hth 4ir. 677<-.
R677; 53 +ebT
A prisoner#s participation in an internal aEairs investigation concerning his alleged beating by correctional o'cers did not
substitute for the re*uirement that the prisoner e%haust available administrative remedies before pursuing a lawsuit for damages.
)anaro v. 4ity of J. /as Gegas, Jo. 7@18<=<7, 677< U.2. App. /e%is 6H7H7 ,>th 4ir.-. R677; 53 +ebT
)risoner failed to e%haust available administrative remedies, as re*uired by @6 U.2.4. 2ec. 8>>=e, before ling his federal civil
rights lawsuit claiming that his rights were violated because he was ordered to clean a prison dumpster of caustic chemicals without
ade*uate protective clothing. 3ecause he only e%hausted his remedies concerning alleged inade*uate medical care for his inIuries
arising after the incident, his Eighth Amendment claim concerning the order itself was properly dismissed. Mathews v. 4olorado (ept.
of 4orrections, Jo. 7<18787, 8@; +ed. App%. >HH ,87th 4ir. 677<-. RJS0T
)risoner#s lawsuit concerning alleged inade*uate medical care was not barred by failure to e%haust available administrative
remedies when court found that he had no remedies available to e%haust. )risoner#s complaint was that prison medical personnel
failed to arrange, in a timely manner, for him to be treated by specialists at a hospital where he was ultimately diagnosed as suEering
from throat cancer. Appealing the denial of his administrative grievance, the court found, would not have provided him with any relief,
since by the time the right to appeal e%isted, he had already been transferred, and had already suEered the harm. !abby v. Meyer,
L7@147@=;, :>7 +. 2upp. 6d H78 ,E.(. Kis. 677<-. RJS0T
Khile prisoner led an administrative grievance concerning an alleged assault on him by correctional o'cers, he failed to follow
prison procedures for appealing the denial of that grievance, re*uiring dismissal of his lawsuit under @6 U.2.4. 2ec. 8>>=e,a-. 5acobs
v. )ennsylvania (epartment of 4orrections, Jo. 7<18@<<, 8@H +ed. App%. 87= ,:rd 4ir. 677<-. RJS0T
)rison medical director was entitled to dismissal of inmate#s federal civil rights lawsuit concerning treatment for old bullet wounds
which resulted in four bullets lodged in his body, based on prisoner#s failure to e%haust administrative remedies before pursuing
litigation. 3urrell v. )owers, Jo. 7@1:=@<, 677< U.2. App. /e%is 6;>76 ,=th 4ir.-. R677; 53 5anT
)risoner#s lawsuit, claiming that he contracted histoplasmosis, a fungal disease aEecting the lungs, from pigeon and bat droppings
at prison, was properly dismissed without preIudice when he failed to specify the claims he asserted in prior administrative hearings,
based on the re*uirement, in the )rison /itigation 0eform Act, @6 U.2.4. 2ec. 8>>=e, that he e%haust available administrative
remedies before pursuing litigation. 4layton v. U.2. (epart. of 5ustice, Jo. 7@1<<:;, 8:; +ed. App%. H@7 ,;th 4ir. 677<-. RJS0T
A parole violator who was conned at a Jew .or" state drug treatment campus was a BprisonerB subIect to the re*uirement in the
)rison /itigation 0eform Act, @6 U.2.4. 2ec. 8>>=e, re*uiring him to e%haust available administrative remedies before pursuing a
federal civil rights lawsuit against the county, sheriE, and correctional o'cers. 2ummary Iudgment was therefore properly granted to
the defendants based on his failure to comply with this re*uirement before pursuing his lawsuit. 0uggiero v. 4ounty of Frange, Jo. 7:
4$G. 8:>;, :H; +. 2upp. 6d @:@ ,2.(.J... 677<-. RJS0T
+ederal appeals court rules that it is not legally re*uired that trial court dismiss a prisoner#s entire complaint when it contains both
e%hausted and une%hausted claims. 5udge should instead dismiss only the claims on which the prisoner has not e%hausted available
administrative remedies. /ira v. 9errera, Jo. 7618;:6<, 677< U.2. App. /e%is 6:<<7 ,>th 4ir.-. R677< 53 (ecT
5ail detainee was e%cused from having to e%haust Iail grievance procedures before suing for alleged denial of medical care and
treatment for her bro"en arm, when she presented evidence that the Iail had a BNat ruleB that complaints concerning medical
treatment were Bnot grievable.B 0ancher v. +ran"lin 4ounty, My., Jo. 7@1<667, 866 +ed. App%. 6@7 ,;th 4ir. 677<-. R677< 53 (ecT
)retrial detainee failed to e%haust available administrative remedies, as re*uired by @6 U.2.4. 2ec. 8>>=e, before ling his civil
rights lawsuit claiming that county Iail employees failed to ade*uately protect him from assault by fellow prisoners. Khile he led
administrative grievances, he admitted that he did not appeal their denials, and, based on that admission, the alleged failure to
provide him with written denials of his grievances did not e%cuse his failure to appeal. &ruly v. 2heahan, Jo. 7@166H7, 8:< +ed. App%.
H;> ,=th 4ir. 677<-. RJS0T
)risoner failed to su'ciently e%haust available administrative remedies before ling federal civil rights lawsuit challenging the
denial of his re*uest for surgery for a problem with his arm and the denial of his re*uest for a single1occupancy cell. Khile the
prisoner led grievances and pursued appeals, he failed to name any of the defendants named in his federal civil rights lawsuit in his
grievances. Killiams v. Fverton, Jo. 7:16<7=, 8:; +ed App%. H<> ,;th 4ir. 677<-. RJS0T
Appeals court orders further proceedings to determine whether prisoner, in ling three inmate re*uest forms as"ing for a change
of cell to get away from a cellmate who allegedly threatened him, su'ciently e%hausted available administrative remedies to allow
him to proceed with a federal civil rights lawsuit for alleged failure to protect him after the cellmate allegedly attac"ed him and he
was moved to a diEerent cell. 3raham v. Armstrong, 7:178<:, 677< U.2. App. /e%is 687H< ,6nd 4ir.-. R677< 53 JovT
Khile prisoner#s partial paralysis following a stro"e might have Iustied his failure to le a grievance concerning his medical
treatment within fourteen days as re*uired by prison rules, he failed to e%plain why he waited almost two years before ling a
grievance. 9is federal civil rights lawsuit, therefore, was properly dismissed for failure to e%haust available administrative remedies.
Killiams v. 4omstoc", 7@1;@<:, 677< U.2. App. /e%is 687H; ,6nd 4ir.-. R677< 53 JovT
+urther proceedings were re*uired to determine whether prisoner#s actions in sending multiple letters and re*uest forms to prison
o'cials was su'cient to e%haust available administrative remedies as re*uired by the )rison /itigation 0eform Act, @6 U.2.4. 2ec.
8>>=e, allowing him to proceed with his federal civil rights lawsuit claiming that prison o'cials unconstitutionally failed to protect him
from violent assault by another prisoner. Aponte v. Armstrong, L7:178H;, 8:= +ed. App%. @8@ ,6nd 4ir. 677<-. RJS0T
)risoner ade*uately showed that he e%hausted available administrative remedies before ling his federal civil rights lawsuit
concerning various conditions of his connement when the defendant prison o'cials did not dispute his claim that they failed to
respond to the grievances he led and failed to inform him of the grievance procedures. &urner v. 9uston, Jo. 7@18H<7, 8:= +ed.
App%. HH7 ,=th 4ir. 677<-. RJS0T
)risoner#s claim that his rights were violated when prison o'cials had him undergo a 61hour transport to another prison#s medical
facility, rather than being ta"en to a local hospital for treatment was a lawsuit about prison conditions subIect to the e%haustion of
remedies re*uirement of the )rison /itigation 0eform Act, @6 U.2.4. 2ec. 8>>=e. $n this case the prisoner failed to le a grievance
concerning the incident and that failure was not e%cused by his claim that his blood sugar level was Bout of controlB at the time of the
incident. Mc4ray v. +irst 2tate Medical 2ystem, Jo. 4$G. 7@18=:, :=> +. 2upp. 6d ;:< ,(. (el. 677<-. RJS0T
Khile prisoner did not e%haust his available administrative remedies concerning some of his claims against certain defendants, he
would be allowed to proceed with the claims on which he had done so. &he trial court reached this decision, reIecting the Btotal
e%haustionB rule recently adopted by a panel of the U.2. 4ourt of Appeals for the 2i%th 4ircuit in 5ones 3ey v. 5ohnson, Jo. 7:6::8,
@7= +.:d H78 ,;th 4ir. 677<- &he trial court found that this panel#s decision was BvoidB under 2i%th 4ircuit law because there was also
a prior applicable ;th 4ircuit panel decision in 9artseld v. Gidor, Jo. >>a7@7;, 8>> +.:d :7< ,;th 4ir. 8>>>-, holding that in a
prisoner#s civil rights lawsuit, une%hausted claims should be dismissed without preIudice, and e%hausted claims should be allowed to
proceed. &he trial court found that, in light of these two conNicting panel decisions, the earlier decision remained controlling until
overturned by the entire 2i%th 4ircuit 4ourt of Appeals sitting en banc, or a decision of the United 2tates 2upreme 4ourt. !arner v.
Un"nown Japel, Jo. 6P7<14G1=>, :=@ +. 2upp. 6d <H6 ,K.(. Mich. 677<-. RJS0T
F'cer accused of using e%cessive force against prisoner who assaulted him was not entitled to dismissal of the lawsuit based on
the prisoner#s alleged failure to e%haust available administrative remedies. &he prisoner led a grievance concerning the o'cer#s
action, and allegedly failed to appeal further since there was never any response to his grievance. 3rengettcy v. 9orton, Jo. 7:1:H8:,
677< U.2. App. /e%is 8>:;6 ,=th 4ir.-. R677< 53 FctT
A prisoner#s BuntimelyB administrative grievance was insu'cient to satisfy the re*uirement under the )rison /itigation 0eform Act,
@6 U.2.4. 2ec. 8>>=e, that available administrative remedies be e%hausted before ling suit. Appeals court orders prisoner#s lawsuit,
asserting claims for alleged e%posure to ha?ardous chemicals, and harassment and retaliation by prison o'cials, dismissed. 5ohnson
v. Meadows, Jo. 7:18<;:;, 677< U.2. App. /e%is 8<6:: ,88th 4ir.-. RJS0T
)risoner failed to ade*uately e%haust available administrative remedies when he led written grievances concerning his claims for
disciplinary parole consideration and retaliation, but failed to see" nal administrative review of these grievances. 5ones v. Maher, Jo.
7@1:>>:, 8:8 +ed. App%. H8: ,:rd 4ir. 677<-. RJS0T
)risoner#s lawsuit had to be dismissed without preIudice in its entirety when he failed to le grievances concerning his claims of
denial of medical assistance, and led his lawsuit before e%hausting his available administrative remedies on his claim that he was
assaulted by a correctional o'cer. )risoners are re*uired by @6 U.2.4. 2ec. 8>>=e, the court rules, to totally e%haust available
administrative remedies on all claims contained in their lawsuit before ling suit, under the principles stated in 3ey v. 5ohnson, Jo. 7:1
6::8, @7= +.:d H78 ,;th 4ir. 677<-. 2anche?10amos v. 2nie?e", Jo. @P7<4G=H7, :=7 +. 2upp. 6d ;<6 ,J.(. Fhio 677<-. RJS0T
/awsuit challenging the conditions of inmate#s connement at two federal facilities was properly dismissed because he failed to
e%haust available administrative remedies. )atel v. +leming, Jo. 7@1;6;;, 677< U.2. App. /e%is 8@;<@ ,87th 4ir.- R677< 53 2epT
)risoner did not fail to properly e%haust available administrative remedies on religious freedom claim. Khile the issue of the
alleged untimeliness of his grievance was raised in the administrative process, correctional o'cials principally reIected his grievance
on its merits. 4onyers v. Abit?, Jo. 7@18;:7, 677< U.2. App. /e%is 8<8:7 ,=th 4ir.-. R677< 53 2epT
&rial court improperly failed to assess whether prisoner#s letters of complaint and appeals of misbehavior reports led against him
were ade*uate to put prison on notice for purposes of determining whether he e%hausted administrative remedies as re*uired by @6
U.2.4. 2ec. 8>>=e prior to ling lawsuit, or whether special circumstances Iustied his failure to le a formal grievance. 3oddie v.
3radley, Jo. 76178:<, 86> +ed. App%. ;<H ,6nd 4ir. 677<-. RJS0T
)risoner#s lawsuit against federal prison dentists for failure to provide him with needed treatment was properly dismissed for
failure to e%haust available administrative remedies. 2immat v. U.2. 3ureau of )risons, Jo. 7:1::;8, 677< U.2. App. /e%is 8:8@@ ,87th
4ir.-. R677< 53 AugT
+ormer prisoner did not have to plead, in his complaint, that he had e%hausted his available administrative remedies before ling
his lawsuit claiming that there was deliberate indiEerence to his urgent medical needs while he was conned for seven hours in the
local Iail. Appeals court nds that, as a former prisoner, the plaintiE was not subIect to the e%haustion re*uirement of the )rison
/itigation 0eform Act, @6 U.2.4. 2ec. 8>>=e,h-, and that, even if he was, he was under no obligation to plead e%haustion in his
complaint, since the Act#s e%haustion re*uirement is an Ba'rmative defense that the defendant has the burden to plead and to
prove.B Jerness v. 5ohnson, Jo. 7@16;=>, @78 +.:d H=@ ,Hth 4ir. 677<-. RJS0T
A prisoner is not re*uired to allege, in his complaint, that he has e%hausted all available administrative remedies, so that the
dismissal of a lawsuit on that basis, without giving the prisoner a chance to respond concerning the issue, was improper. Anderson v.
W.Q 4orr. 9ealth 2erv., Jo. 7@1;HH<, @7= +.:d ;=@ ,@th 4ir. 677<-. R677< 53 5ulT
+ederal appeals court rules that prisoner#s lawsuit, in its entirety, should be dismissed when he failed to e%haust available
administrative remedies on any of its claims. 5ones 3ey v. 5ohnson, Jo. 7:16::8 677< U.2. App. /e%is =8;; ,;th 4ir-. R677< 53 5ulT
2pecial circumstances Iustied the plaintiE prisoner#s failure to e%haust administrative remedies concerning his claim against a
prison dentist for deliberate indiEerence when he did not learn, until he had been transferred to another facility, that his pain resulted
from a foreign obIect and reactive lesion in the part of his mouth from which a dentist had e%tracted a tooth. 3orges v. Admin. for
2trong Mem. 9osp., L>>14G1;:<8, ::= +.2upp.6d @6@, 677@ U.2. (ist. /e%is 67<>< ,K.(.J... 677@-U prior decis. at 6776 U.2. (ist. /e%is
8H<>;. RJS0T
)risoner failed to e%haust his available administrative remedies, as re*uired by @6 U.2.4. 2ec. 8>>=e, on his claim that a
correctional o'cer conscated his contact lenses because he is homose%ual. Khile he pursued grievances concerning the contact
lenses, he failed to assert in those grievances that he was a homose%ual or that his se%ual orientation was related to the reason why
the o'cer too" the actions against him. !oldsmith v. Khite, Jo. <P7@cv=6, :<= +. 2upp. 6d 8::; ,J.(. +la. 677<-. RJ
0T
)risoner failed to e%haust his available administrative remedies, as re*uired by @6 U.2.4. 2ec. 8>>=e, on his claim that a
correctional o'cer was engaged in racial discrimination in sei?ing his property purchased in the prison commissary. Khile the
prisoner prepared a number of statements about the incident he circulated to prison o'cials, they were never property submitted to
the warden or other o'cials as re*uired by regulations. Additionally, the statements circulated merely summari?ed the incident
without ma"ing any claim of racial discrimination. &he prisoner#s lawsuit was therefore properly dismissed. 2mith v. 0udicel, Jo. 7@1
:@;6, 86: +ed. App%. >7; ,87th 4ir. 677<-. RJS0T
)risoner#s federal civil rights lawsuit challenging his discipline as a violation of his +irst Amendment rights should not have been
dismissed for failure to e%haust available administrative remedies. +ederal appeals court rules that he did e%haust his administrative
remedies when his appeal of his denied grievance was reIected as untimely. &he )rison /itigation 0eform Act#s e%haustion
re*uirement, the court holds, does not bar consideration of a prisoner#s claims when his administrative appeal was denied on state
law procedural grounds. Jgo v. Koodford, Jo. 7:18;7@6, 677< U.2. App. /e%is @H7> ,>th 4ir. 677<-. R677< 53 MayT
(espite a prisoner#s Bpoor EnglishB and Blimited education,B his failure to comply in a timely manner with the re*uirements of the
)rison /itigation 0eform Act, @6 U.2.4. 2ec. 8>>=e that he e%haust available administrative remedies would not be waived, since his
previous federal civil rights lawsuit had been dismissed for the same reason, and his access to the grievance appeals process had not
been obstructed. A prisoner, the court ruled, cannot attempt to circumvent the re*uirement in the Act that they e%haust available
administrative remedies before ling a lawsuit by simply waiting to bring their lawsuit until their administrative remedies are time1
barred. Martine? v. Killiams, Jo. 7@ 4$G.8>:H, :@> +. 2upp. 6d ;== ,2.(.J... 677@-.RJS0T
4alifornia prisoner complied with the re*uirement that he e%haust available administrative remedies by ling provided form
describing his alleged disability of visual impairment and the accommodations he re*uested. 9is failure to identify specic prison
employees as allegedly responsible for his grievances did not alter the result when the form supplied by the state did not as" for
particular individuals to be named. 3utler v. Adams, Jo. 7@18<@=H, 677< U.2. App. /e%is 8H>H ,>th 4ir. 677<- R677< 53 AprT
4olorado state prisoners who sued to challenge their conditions of connement in the county Iail they were transferred to could
not pursue their claims when they had failed to e%haust available administrative remedies as re*uired by the )rison /itigation 0eform
Act, @6 U.2.4. 2ec. 8>>=e,a-. &he record in the case showed that the prisoners failed to le grievances in the Iail. &his failure was not
e%cused by the initial refusal of Iail o'cials to furnish them with Iail grievance forms because they were state prisoners, when the
grievance forms were eventually provided. !arcia v. &aylor, Jo. 7:18:;8, 88: +ed. App%. H<= ,87th 4ir. 677@-. RJS0T
)risoner#s lawsuit over the alleged unauthori?ed deduction of V8<7 from his inmate trust account was properly dismissed when he
failed to e%haust his available administrative remedies. 3uhl v. United 2tates, 88= +ed. App%. :> ,87th 4ir. 677@-. RJS0T
+ederal trial court could e%ercise its discretion to allow plaintiE prisoner to proceed on a claim against one doctor asserting
inade*uate medical treatment on which administrative remedies had been e%hausted, while dismissing other claims against other
defendants against whom administrative remedies had not been e%hausted. &he e%haustion of remedies provision of the )rison
/itigation 0eform Act, @6 U.2.4. 2ec. 8>>=e, does not re*uire the court to apply a Bcomplete e%haustionB rule to the prisoner#s
complaint, dismissing all claims merely because administrative remedies had not been e%hausted with respect to some of them.
9ubbard v. &ha"ur, Jo. 7:1877<H, :@@ +. 2upp. 6d <@> ,E.(. Mich. 677@-. RJS0T
)risoner#s lawsuit alleging improper denial of medical and dental care was properly dismissed when he failed to e%haust available
administrative remedies as re*uired by @6 U.2.4. 2ec. 8>>=e. 9e failed to follow advised procedures for appealing the initial reIection
of his grievance after being told that his appeal had incorrectly been sent directly to the prison#s superintendent instead of the
grievance cler". 4olon v. 9arvey, Jo. 7614G1;@7=, :@@ +. 2upp. 6d H>; ,K.(.J... 677@-. RJS0T
A federal trial court improperly dismissed a prisoner#s federal civil rights lawsuit for failure to e%haust available administrative
remedies as re*uired by @6 U.2.4. 2ec. 8>>=e. &he prisoner sued correctional o'cials, claiming various violations of his constitutional
rights in connection with his attempt to be placed on the indigent prisoner list so that he would be provided with personal hygiene
products. A federal appeals court held that the prisoner ade*uately e%hausted his available administrative remedies when the warden
granted him the relief he sought in his grievance and placed him on the indigent inmate list. 9e could, accordingly, proceed with his
federal civil rights claim concerning actions of correctional o'cials prior to that grant of relief. Malone v. +ran"lin, Jo. 7@1;8>:, 88:
+ed. App%. :;@ ,87th 4ir. 677@-. RJS0T
+ederal appeals court reinstates 3uddhist prisoner#s claim under the 0eligious /and Use and $nstitutionali?ed )ersons Act ,0/U$)A-
that it violated his rights to deny him a special religious diet without meat, dairy products, or Bpungent vegetables.B E%haustion of
remedies under 0eligious +reedom 0estoration Act was su'cient to support claim under 0/U$)A, since the legal standards under both
statutes were identical. (ehart v. 9orn, L7:1@6<7, :>7 +.:d 6;6 ,:d 4ir. 677@-. R677< 53 +ebT
A Jew .or" prisoner#s failure to le a timely appeal to the highest administrative level of his grievance against a correctional
o'cer concerning his removal from his porter wor" assignment barred his federal civil rights lawsuit under @6 U.2.4. 2ec. 8>>=e for
failure to e%haust available administrative remedies. 9is failure to do so was not e%cused by his transfer to another correctional
facility. 2oto v. 3elcher, Jo. 78 4iv. =<67, ::> +. 2upp. 6d <>6 ,2.(.J... 677@-. RJS0T
)risoner ruled to have ade*uately e%hausted available administrative remedies even when he had not Btechnically e%haustedB
procedures prescribed by state law for inmate grievances because he had pursued both formal and informal avenues to present his
grievances and did not receive any formal response to his grievance until ve months after it was led. (efendant correctional
o'cers were therefore not entitled to summary Iudgment in the prisoner#s lawsuit claiming that they had assaulted him. 5en"ins v.
0aub, Jo. 7814G1;@668, :87 +. 2upp. 6d <76 ,K.(.J... 677@-. RJS0T
+ederal appeals court orders further proceedings concerning whether prisoner was Iustied in failing to le a grievance concerning
correctional o'cers# alleged assault on him by their threats of retaliation if he did so. 9emphill v. 2tate of Jew .or", L76178;@, :H7
+.:d ;H7 ,6d 4ir. 677@-. R677< 53 5anT
Under 4alifornia statutory law, both the 2tate and the (epartment of 4orrections were immune from liability on a prisoner#s claims
arising out of alleged medical malpractice and intentional inNiction of emotional distress. )risoner was also re*uired, under both
federal and state law, to e%haust available administrative remedies before pursuing his claims in court, and failed to do so. Kright v.
2tate of 4al., Jo. 47@@:76, 8> 4al. 0ptr. :d >6 ,4al. App. :d (ist. 677@-. RJS0T
Man held under $llinois se%ually dangerous persons statute, under which criminal proceedings are stayed for the purpose of
treatment for mental illness was a pretrial detainee properly classied as a BprisonerB for purposes of the e%haustion of remedies
re*uirement and Bthree stri"esB rule of the )rison /itigation 0eform Act. 9is lawsuit asserting a claim for alleged inade*uate access to
prison law library was therefore properly dismissed for failure to e%haust available administrative remedies. Malinows"i v. 3ond, Jo.
761:6=:, :<H +.:d >=H ,=th 4ir.-, cert, denied, 86@ 2. 4t. 6H@: ,677@-. R677@ 53 (ecT
(efendants in prisoner#s federal civil rights lawsuit were entitled to summary Iudgment when he failed to ma"e specic allegations
from which the trial court could determine which, if any, of his claims he had e%hausted available administrative remedies on, as
re*uired by @6 U.2.4. 2ec. 8>>=e, and he failed to identify the prison employees named as defendants in his lawsuit in his grievances
and failed to assert grievances about any specic action allegedly performed by them. Killiams1El v. Mc/emore, Jo. 4$G. >H1=@7@6,
:6= +. 2upp. 6d =H@ ,E.(. Mich. 677@-. RJS0T
Khen the plaintiE prisoner showed that he had e%hausted available administrative remedies as to some claims in his lawsuit, but
not as to others, the )rison /itigation 0eform Act, @6 U.2.4. 2ec. 8>>=e, did not re*uire the dismissal of his lawsuit in its entirety.
)risoner stated an arguable due process claim by alleging that he was not given any outside e%ercise for a period of time and was
prevented from showering for wee"s during his disciplinary connement in a special housing unit when the only evidence supporting
the discipline was an accusation from a condential informant that he had been selling drugs. Frti? v. Mc3ride, Jo. 76177HH, :H7 +.:d
;@> ,6nd 4ir. 677@-. RJS0T
)risoner, who received favorable rulings in his prison grievances concerning alleged inade*uate medical treatment, and
specically, special orthopedic footwear provided to him after foot surgery, su'ciently e%hausted his available administrative
remedies when the favorable rulings allegedly failed to result in any relief. Appeals court states that a prisoner who does not receive
promised relief under such circumstances is not re*uired, under the )rison /itigation 0eform Act, @6 U.2.4. 2ec. 8>>=e, to le yet
another grievance concerning that. Abney v. Mc!innis, L76176@8, :H7 +.:d ;;: ,6nd 4ir. 677@-. RJS0T
+ederal appeals court rules that )rison /itigation 0eform Act#s re*uirement that prisoners e%haust available administrative
remedies before pursuing lawsuits applies to prisoners in private facilities. 3oyd v. 4orrections 4orp. of America, Jo. 7:1<66=, :H7
+.:d >H> ,;th 4ir. 677@-. R677@ 53 JovT
Even though a pretrial detainee was moved from one county Iail to another and "ept in solitary connement until after the
deadline for ling an administrative grievance had passed, and allegedly was never informed of the grievance procedure, he was not
e%cused from the re*uirement under @6 U.2.4. 2ec. 8>>=e,a- that he e%haust available administrative remedies before ling a federal
civil rights lawsuit alleging that o'cers used e%cessive force against him during a strip search. 4ourt notes that the detainee was not
prevented from ling a grievance concerning this issue, and in fact, he did submit re*uests for medical treatment during that time.
&urrietta v. 3arreras, Jo. 7616:@:, >8 +ed. App%. ;@7 ,87th 4ir. 677@-. RJS0T
)risoner who failed to appear in person before prison#s review board did not thereby fail to e%haust his available administrative
remedies when there was no rule re*uiring those pursuing grievances before it to appear in person and he allegedly was not informed
that the board wanted him to personally appear. +ederal appeals court, therefore, reverses dismissal of prisoner#s Eighth Amendment
claim against correctional o'cers for failure to e%haust administrative remedies. 4arroll v. .ates, Jo. 7816>:8, :;6 +.:d >H@ ,=th 4ir.
677@-. RJS0T
)risoner was re*uired under @6 U.2.4. 2ec. 8>>=e,a- of the )rison /itigation 0eform Act to e%haust available administrative
remedies before pursuing disability discrimination claim under Americans with (isabilities Act, @6 U.2.4. 2ec. 86878 et se*., against
correctional o'cials for their alleged failure to treat his attention decit hyperactivity disorder ,A(9(-. 4hamberlain v. Fverton, :6; +.
2upp. 6d H88 ,E.(. Mich. 677@-. RJS0T
)risoner#s raising of his complaint in a disciplinary hearing might amount, in some circumstances, to e%haustion of remedies prior
to commencing litigation for purposes of )rison /itigation 0eform Act. 5ohnson v. &estman, Jo. 76178@< 677@ U.2. App. /e%is 8=6:;
,6d 4ir. 677@- R677@ 53 FctT
)risoner#s civil rights lawsuit claiming that correctional o'cers assaulted him was barred on the basis of his failure to e%haust
available administrative remedies as re*uired by @6 U.2.4. 2ec. 8>>=e. Khile he did write letters of complaint to prison o'cials, he
did not report the alleged assault to the o'cers# immediate supervisor, and did not appeal adverse determinations concerning his
complaint. 2tephenson v. (unford, :67 +. 2upp. 6d @@ ,K.(.J... 677@-. RJS0T
4alifornia prisoner#s lawsuit claiming that corrections o'cers assaulted him dismissed for failure to totally e%haust available
administrative remedies as re*uired by the )rison /itigation 0eform Act, @6 U.2.4. 2ec. 8>>=e,a-. Entire complaint dismissed when it
contained a mi%ture of both e%hausted and une%hausted claims, although prisoner could, if he wanted, le a new complaint
concerning only claims on which he had e%hausted administrative remedies. Mubara" v. 4alifornia (epartment of 4orrections, :8< +.
2upp. 6d 87<= ,2.(. 4al. 677@-. RJS0T
)risoner was e%cused from having to e%haust administrative remedies before ling federal civil rights lawsuit against Iail
employees# alleged use of e%cessive force against him both in reliance of then applicable case law later reIected by U.2. 2upreme
4ourt, and also because his transfer to another facility made administrative remedies at the county Iail no longer BavailableB to him.
0odrigue? v. Kestchester 4ounty 5ail 4orr. (ept., Jo. 7617:6<, 677@ U.2. App. /e%is 86@HH ,6nd 4ir. 677@-. R677@ 53 AugT
)risoner#s federal civil rights lawsuit against correctional o'cials for allegedly "eeping him loc"ed in a cell without ade*uate
heating and ventilation was improperly dismissed for failure to e%haust available administrative remedies. Under prison#s grievance
policy, these issues were non1grievable since they involved many prisoners. +igel v. 3ouchard, L7:18<;=, H> +ed. App%. >=7 ,;th 4ir.
677@-. R677@ 53 AugT
&rial court improperly dismissed prisoner#s lawsuit concerning prison o'cials# alleged failure to protect him from another inmate on
the basis of failure to e%haust available administrative remedies without considering prisoner#s claim that prison o'cials prevented
him from e%hausting his administrative remedies by beating him, threatening him, denying him grievance forms and writing
implements, and transferring him to another facility. &rial court could also have considered his claim that complaints to the +3$
constituted an informal e%haustion of his administrative grievances su'cient to satisfy the re*uirements of the )rison /itigation
0eform Act, @6 U.2.4. 2ec. 8>>=e. +ailure to e%haust administrative remedies is an Ba'rmative defense,B and is subIect to BestoppelB
barring the defense if prison o'cials actually did prevent a prisoner from pursuing a grievance. Qiemba v. Ke?ner, Jo. 7617:@7, :;;
+.:d 8;8 ,6nd 4ir. 677@-. RJS0T
)rison o'cials could assert a prisoner#s failure to e%haust available administrative remedies as a defense in a second summary
Iudgment motion in his federal civil rights lawsuit after having failed to do so in a rst summary Iudgment motion, and even after the
time period for ling such a motion had e%pired. +irst, the defendants had also alleged this defense in their answer to the complaint.
2econd, since the defendants could have asserted the same defense at trial, allowing the summary Iudgment motion to be led
saved the prisoner the e%pense of preparing for a trial that he would have lost. 2ummary Iudgment for prison o'cials upheld. Gillante
v. Gandy"e, Jo. 7:177@@, >: +ed. App%. :7= ,6nd 4ir. 677@-. RJS0T
+ormer prisoner could pursue claims for nominal damages for alleged violations of his +irst Amendment rights while incarcerated
despite provision in )rison /itigation 0eform Act, @6 U.2.4. 2ec. 8>>=e,e- preventing him from pursing claims for compensatory
damages in the absence of physical inIury. +urther, the fact that the prisoner had been released did not ma"e his claim moot, as
nominal damages are past damages. Mc(aniels v. McMinna, L7:186:8, >; +ed. App%. <=< ,87th 4ir. 677@-. RJS0T
)risoner failed to e%haust available administrative remedies as re*uired by @6 U.2.4. 2ec. 8>>=e,a- before ling a lawsuit
concerning prison o'cials# alleged deliberate indiEerence to his medical needs concerning his feet and footwear. Khile he did le a
prison grievance, he did not mention these o'cials in the rst step of his grievance procedure. Gandiver v. Martin, :7@ +. 2upp. 6d
>:@ ,E.(. Mich. 677@-. RJS0T
2tatute of limitations on prisoner#s disability discrimination claim based on his dismissal from prison Iob was tolled ,e%tended-
under )ennsylvania state law during the time that a prison o'cial delayed lling out an administrative complaint form, even though
the delay was not intentional, but merely negligent. /imitations period was also e%tended during the time that the prisoner pursued
the e%haustion of his available administrative remedies as re*uired by @6 U.2.4. 2ec. 8>>=e,a-. 9oward v. Mende?, :7@ +. 2upp. 6d
;:6 ,M.(. )a. 677@-. RJS0T
)risoner#s lawsuit concerning complaints about his medical treatment, when most of the complained of treatment too" place after
he led his administrative grievance, was properly dismissed in its entirety for failure to e%haust available administrative remedies.
0oss v. 4ounty of 3ernalillo, Jo. 7616::=, 677@ U.2. App. /e%is H:;6 ,87th 4ir. 677@-. R677@ 53 5unT
(ismissal of federal prisoner#s claim for alleged loss of his property due to negligence of prison employees was proper. Jo such
claim could be brought under +ederal &ort 4laims Act, and prisoner failed to e%haust available prison grievance procedure as to any
civil rights claim. +urther, mere negligence leading to loss of property cannot be the basis of a constitutional claim. 2teele v. +ederal
3ureau of )risons, L7618@>6, :<< +.:d 867@ ,87th 4ir. 677:-. R677@ 53 MayT
)risoner showed that he e%hausted his available administrative remedies on his claim that inade*uate medical care was provided
for his 4rohn#s disease and diabetes when prison o'cials failed to respond to his led grievance during the subse*uent four1year time
period. Koulard v. +ood 2ervice, 6>@ +. 2upp. 6d <>; ,(. (el. 677:-. RJS0T
)rison o'cials granted summary Iudgment on prisoner#s claim that he was beaten by correctional o'cers after defendants
presented evidence supporting their contention that he had failed to e%haust available administrative remedies as re*uired by @6
U.2.4. 2ec. 8>>=e,a-. Arnold v. !oet?, 6@< +. 2upp. 6d <6= ,2.(.J... 677:-. RJS0T
)risoner#s claims against 6; correctional employees and o'cials for alleged denial of ade*uate medical care and unconstitutional
conditions of connement dismissed based on his failure to e%haust available administrative remedies. Mc4oy v. !oord, 6<< +. 2upp.
6d 6:: ,2.(.J... 677:-. RJS0T
+ederal appeals court rules that a dismissal of a prisoner#s civil rights lawsuit for failing to e%haust administrative remedies was
improper in the absence of prior notice and an opportunity to respond being provided to the prisoner. MoIias v. 5ohnson, Jo. 7:17868,
677: U.2. App. /e%is 6@;>:, :<8 +.:d ;7; ,6nd 4ir. 677:-. R677@ 53 +ebT
A genuine factual issue as to whether a prisoner e%hausted his administrative remedies concerning his grievance over missing a
night1time dosage of prescribed pain medication precluded summary Iudgment for state (epartment of 4orrections 4ommissioner in
prisoner#s federal civil rights lawsuit. 0ichardson v. !oord, L7616H>, :@= +.:d @:8 ,6nd 4ir. 677:-. RJS0T
)risoner#s lawsuit was improperly dismissed for failure to e%haust available administrative remedies when he was actually unable
to pursue a grievance, allegedly because prison o'cials refused to provide him with the necessary grievance forms. Mitchell v. 9orn,
L>H18>:6, :8H +.:d <6: ,:rd 4ir. 677:-. R677@ 53 5anT
)ennsylvania prisoner failed to e%haust available administrative remedies before pursuing federal civil rights claim asserting that
correctional o'cers failed to protect him against attac" by another inmate when he did not le administrative grievances within the
8<1day time period established by the state#s inmate grievance system. 4asey v. 2mith, Jo. 761@6@<, =8 +ed. App%. >8; ,:rd 4ir.
677:-. RJS0T
)risoner#s failure to e%haust available administrative remedies for the alleged conscation of his property re*uired the dismissal
without preIudice of his federal civil rights claim alleging that the sei?ure of his se%ually e%plicit materials violated his +irst
Amendment rights. McMillian v. /itscher, Jo. >>1:76>, =6 +ed. App%. @:H ,=th 4ir. 677:-. RJS0T
Khen defendant prison o'cials suggested, but did not a'rmatively plead as a defense, the prisoner#s failure to e%haust available
administrative remedies, their dismissal motion would be converted into a motion for summary Iudgment by the court, with an order
providing for further brieng or the production of evidence, and the plaintiE prisoner given an opportunity to respond. &orrence v.
)esanti, 6:> +. 2upp. 6d 6:7 ,(. 4onn. 677:-. RJS0T
+ederal appeals court nds that a prisoner can e%haust his administrative remedies by presenting his complaints to prison o'cials,
even if they refuse to address the grievance because it was untimely under prison rules. &o pursue a claim in his subse*uent lawsuit,
however, the grievance must have provided prison o'cials notice of the nature of the complaint. )laintiE prisoner did not, in his
grievance, provide notice that he was asserting a failure to protect claim against correctional o'cers who allegedly saw a fellow
o'cer beat him but failed to intervene, but V=7,777 in damages awarded against o'cer who allegedly beat him. &homas v. Koolum,
L781:66=, ::= +.:d =67 ,;th 4ir. 677:-. R677: 53 (ecT
)risoner#s claims for compensation for personal property that correctional o'cers allegedly destroyed were barred when prisoner
failed to show that he had e%hausted available administrative remedies as re*uired under the terms of the )rison /itigation 0eform
Act, @6 U.2.4. 2ec. 8>>=e,a-. Mhan v. U.2., 6=8 +. 2upp. 6d @7> ,E.(.J... 677:-. RJS0T
)risoners asserting claims against county and sheriE for alleged systemic violations of their rights as persons with Bserious mental
health needsB were not re*uired to e%haust available administrative remedies before ling suit when there was Bno available
administrative remediesB that the plaintiEs could have used for relief. 2hoo" v. 3d. of 4ounty 4ommissioners of the 4ounty of El )aso,
68; +.0.(. ;@@ ,(. 4olo. 677:-. RJS0T
)risoner could not pursue a federal civil rights lawsuit alleging that correctional o'cers assaulted him without provocation and
used e%cessive force against him when success in his claim for damages would imply the invalidity of his disciplinary conviction for
assault and battery and BinsolenceB arising from the same incident. &he prisoner#s claims were barred by the principles established in
9ec" v. 9umphrey, <86 U.2. @== ,8>>@-, since his disciplinary conviction had not been set aside. (enham v. 2hroad, Jo. 7618H68, <;
+ed. App%. ;>6 ,;th 4ir. 677:-. RJS0T
)risoner could pursue claims against some nurses for alleged inade*uate medical care and retaliation against him for ling of an
earlier lawsuit, but not against one nurse against whom he had failed to e%haust available administrative remedies concerning
retaliation claim. &he prisoner#s grievance only had to allege misconduct by the nurses and did not need to plead all the elements of
a particular legal theory. 3urton v. 5ones, Jo. 78187=H, :68 +.:d <;> ,;th 4ir. 677:-. R677: 53 FctT
2ummary Iudgment was improper on prisoner#s claim that correctional o'cers assaulted him when there was a genuine issue of
fact as to whether he had e%hausted his available administrative remedies prior to ling suit, as re*uired by the )rison /itigation
0eform Act, @6 U.2.4. 2ec. 8>>=e,a-. Evans v. 5onathan, 6<: +. 2upp. 6d <7< ,K.(.J... 677:-. RJS0T
)rison o'cials were entitled to amend their response to inmate#s lawsuit claiming that correctional employees assaulted him to
assert a defense of failure to e%haust available dministrative remedies. Khile they were aware of the defense earlier, the law was not
clear that it applied to the circumstances of this lawsuit prior to the U.2. 2upreme 4ourt#s decision in )orter v. Jussle, <:@ U.2. <8;
,6776-, ruling that @6 U.2.4. 2ec. 8>>=e,a-#s re*uirement of e%haustion of remedies applies to all prisoners Bsee"ing redress for prison
circumstances or occurrences.B /ivingston v. )is"or, 68< +.0.(. H@ ,K.(.J... 677:-. RJS0T
Khile the failure of prison o'cials to respond in a timely fashion to a prisoner#s grievance might show, in some instances, that the
prisoner had su'ciently e%hausted available administrative remedies, the plaintiE prisoner failed to present evidence that he was
BhamperedB in this case by an untimely response, so trial court#s dismissal of his lawsuit was appropriate. 2ergent v. Jorris, Jo. 761
@8@6, ::7 +.:d 87H@ ,Hth 4ir. 677:-. RJS0T
$nmate who completed only the rst step of a multi1step Iail grievance procedure failed to satisfy the re*uirements of the )rison
/itigation 0eform Act ,)/0A-, @6 U.2.4. 2ec. 8>>=e, that he e%haust available administrative remedies before ling his lawsuit see"ing
damages for an allegedly unreasonable body cavity search. Morgan v. Maricopa 4ounty, 6<> +. 2upp. 6d >H< ,(. Ari?. 677:-. RJS0T
)risoner was barred from pursuing federal civil rights claim that he was placed in danger when prison o'cials identied him to the
general prison population as a gang member when he failed to e%haust available administrative remedies as re*uired by the )rison
/itigation 0eform Act, @6 U.2.4. 2ec. 8>>=e,a-. /abounty v. 5ohnson, 6<: +. 2upp. 6d @>; ,K.(.J... 677:-. RJS0T
3ecause of a factual issue as to whether an inmate actually led a grievance, and, if so, whether the correctional facility
responded to it, the issue of whether he had e%hausted available administrative remedies prior to ling suit, as re*uired by the )rison
/itigation 0eform Act, @6 U.2.4. 2ec. 8>>=e,a- could not be decided on a motion to dismiss. 2weet v. Kende 4orrectional +acility, 6<:
+. 2upp. 6d @>6 ,K.(.J... 677:-.RJS0T
Mansas prisoner could pursue claim against state for personal inIuries he suEered while operating a road grader at a correctional
institution and was not re*uired under state law to e%haust his administrative remedies before ling suit, under applicable state
regulation. M.A.0. @@18;187@. 3ates v. 2tate of Mansas, Jo. HH,=<=, ;= ).6d 8;H ,Man. App. 677:-. RJS0T
+ederal trial court sets aside Iury#s award of V8 in nominal damages and V:7,777 in punitive damages to female prisoner who sued
correctional o'cer who allegedly engaged in an inappropriate relationship with her, including ta"ing photographs of her and writing
her love letters. )laintiE prisoner failed to e%haust available administrative remedies, as re*uired by the )rison /itigation 0eform Act,
@6 U.2.4. 2ec. 8>>=e,a-. 9er participation in the departmental investigation that led to the o'cer#s resignation was not the same as
pursuing available grievances on her own behalf, and the fact that money damages, the only thing she sought after his resignation,
were not available under the grievance procedure did not render those procedures Bunavailable.B 9oc" v. &hipedeau, 6@< +. 2upp. 6d
@<8 ,(. 4onn. 677:-. RJS0T
3ecause the plaintiE was a prisoner when he brought his lawsuit concerning an alleged assault by prison personnel and forced
medication, his failure to e%haust available administrative remedies re*uired dismissal of his lawsuit, despite the fact that he had
subse*uently been released from custody while his lawsuit was pending, federal appeals court rules. 4o% v. Mayer, Jo. 761<876, 677:
U.2. App. /e%is 88<<@ ,;th 4ir.-. R677: 53 5ulT
$llinois prison o'cials failed to prove that plaintiE prisoner failed to e%haust his available administrative remedies on his federal
civil rights lawsuit asserting that they violated his constitutional rights by failing to ship >> bo%es, containing over 6,H77 pounds of his
property to 4alifornia after he was transferred there. )risoner stated that he did not "now, until after his transfer, that the material
would not be shipped, and it was BdoubtfulB that he could use $llinois administrative remedies once he was in a 4alifornia prison.
)risoner#s federal lawsuit was barred, however, by his prior $llinois state court mandamus action see"ing to force the shipment of the
bo%es, in which the state court had reIected his claim. Kal"er v. )age, Jo. 771:>>7, <> +ed. App%. H>; ,=th 4ir. 677:-. RJS0T
+ederal appeals court rules that prisoner satised the Be%haustion of available administrative remediesB re*uirement su'ciently
by alleging that he was unable to timely le an initial grievance because of his bro"en hand. Appeals court vacates dismissal of
prisoner#s civil rights lawsuit for damages, based on his bro"en hand from slip and fall in prison dining area. (ays v. 5ohnson, L761
877;@, :66 +.:d. H;: ,<th 4ir. 677:-. R677: 53 5unT
)risoner could decide, under Jew .or" state regulations, not to appeal an adverse administrative decision of his prison grievance,
but that decision forfeited his right to bring a federal civil rights lawsuit, under the re*uirement in the )rison /itigation 0eform Act
,)/0A- @6 U.2.4. 2ec. 8>>=,e- that available administrative remedies rst be e%hausted. U.2. 2upreme 4ourt#s decision in )orter v.
Jussle, <:@ U.2. <8; ,6776- ,e%haustion of remedies re*uirement applies to all prisoner see"ing redress for prison circumstances or
occurrences- applies retroactively to claims led before the ruling. 2antos v. 9auc", 6@6 +. 2upp. 6d 6<= ,K.(.J... 677:-. RJS0T
0e*uirement that a prisoner e%haust available administrative remedies before pursuing a federal civil rights lawsuit applies to
pretrial detainees. )laintiE prisoner#s lawsuit see"ing his release from special housing unit reIected for failure to e%haust
administrative remedies. Additionally, despite the allegedly non1violent nature of the crime with which the detainee was charged, the
government presented evidence asserted to lin" him in some way to individuals implicated in the attac"s of 2eptember 88, 6778,
raising signicant security issues with regard to the conditions of his pre1trial incarceration. United 2tates of America v. Al1Marri, 6:>
+. 2upp. 6d :;; ,2.(.J... 6776-. RJS0T
)risoner#s lawsuit against prison o'cials for failing to protect him against assault by other inmates should not have been dismissed
for failure to e%haust administrative remedies despite the fact that he never led an administrative grievance, when prisoner was told
by o'cials that he had to BwaitB until their BinvestigationB was nished, and he was not informed, months later, that it had ended.
3rown v. 4roa", Jo. 781867=, :86 +.:d 87> ,:rd 4ir. 6776-. R677: 53 MayT
)risoner#s lawsuit concerning permanent restrictions on his use of the phone should be dismissed when he failed to comply with
the re*uirements of the )rison /itigation 0eform Act ,)/0A-, @6 U.2.4. 2ec. 8>>=e, that he e%haust available administrative remedies
before ling suit. )risoner led three administrative grievances concerning restrictions on his phone use, but only pursued appeals on
two of the grievances. 2melt?er v. 9oo", 6:< +. 2upp. 6d =:; ,K.(. Mich. 6776-. RJS0T
)risoner complied ade*uately with the e%haustion of administrative remedies re*uirement when he submitted a grievance
concerning his alleged physical mistreatment by correctional o'cers which was not responded to in any way. Abney v. 4ounty of
Jassau, 6:= +. 2upp. 6d 6=H ,E.(.J... 6776-. RJS0T
$nformal complaints that a prisoner made to the city#s inspector general, such as leaving telephone messages concerning his
alleged inade*uate medical treatment, inade*uate heat in the city correctional facility, etc., did not satisfy the legal re*uirement that
he e%haust available administrative remedies before pursuing a federal civil rights lawsuit. &o allow him to bypass formal
administrative procedures Bwould obviate the purpose for which the procedures were enacted.B 3erry v. Meri", 6:= +. 2upp. 6d @<7
,2.(.J... 6776-. RJS0T
+ederal appeals court rules that prisoner pursuing claims against /ouisiana correctional o'cials and employees for inade*uacies in
his medical treatment had to e%haust available administrative remedies, despite recent decision by the /ouisiana 2upreme 4ourt
nding the state#s prison grievance system unconstitutional in part, since that system nevertheless remained in place. +errington v.
/ouisiana (ept. of 4orrections, L761:76<;, :8< +.:d <6> ,<th 4ir. 6776-. R677: 53 AprT
+ederal prisoner#s civil rights claims concerning alleged conscation of his wheelchair and destruction of his leg braces, along with
discontinuation of his physical therapy following transfer to a new facility, were properly dismissed for failure to e%haust available
administrative remedies. )risoner submitted re*uests for administrative remedies to warden and then sent new re*uests to 0egional
(irector instead of submitting appeals to the 0egional (irector, and no appeals were ever made to the (irector of Jational $nmate
Appeals. +ederal &ort 4laims Act ,+&4A-, 6H U.2.4. 2ec. 6@78,b- claims not led within ; months of receiving notice of administrative
agency denial were time barred. 2mith v. U.2., L76188=6, <: +ed. App%. <8@ ,87th 4ir. 6776-. RJS0T
)risoner who bypassed the rst two levels of administrative review of his grievances concerning conditions of connement and
declined to submit to their review after the regional prison o'cial at the third level returned his complaint failed to e%haust available
administrative remedies as re*uired by @6 U.2.4. 2ec. 8>>=e,a- of the )rison /itigation 0eform Act. &he fact that the prisoner believed
that pursuing his grievances at the local level would have been futile did not alter the result. 5eanes v. U.2. (epart. of 5ustice, 6:8 +.
2upp. 6d @H ,(.(.4. 6776-. RJS0T
4ounty sheriE and other Iail personnel, in allegedly interfering with a detainee#s ability to e%haust administrative remedies on his
grievances, as re*uired by the )rison /itigation 0eform Act before proceeding with a federal civil rights lawsuit, might be subIect to
liability for interfering with the detainee#s constitutional right of access to the courts on several claims which were non1frivolous.
4omplete absence of legal materials at Iail prevented detainee of learning of e%haustion re*uirement or attempting to comply with it,
and plaintiE was told his complaints were not subIect to grievance procedure. (avis v. Milwau"ee 4ounty, 66< +. 2upp. 6d >;= ,E.(.
Kis. 6776-. R677: 53 Mar.T
Jebras"a 2upreme 4ourt, in prisoner#s lawsuit claiming that his rights were violated by being celled with another inmate who
smo"ed tobacco, rules that )rison /itigation 0eform Act#s re*uirement, in @6 U.2.4. 2ec. 8>>=e,a-, that inmates e%haust available
administrative remedies before pursuing federal civil rights lawsuits is an a'rmative defense, rather than a necessary element of the
plaintiE#s claim. $n reaching this ruling, the court overturned its own prior ruling in )ratt v. 4lar"e, 6<H Jeb. @76, ;7@ J.K.6d H66
,8>>>-. 4ole v. $sherwood, Jo. H1771;;<, ;<: J.K.6d H68 ,Jeb. 6776-. RJS0T
+ederal trial court was re*uired under @6 U.2.4. 2ec. 8>>=e,a- to dismiss, without preIudice, prisoner#s federal civil rights lawsuit
over prison conditions when he had failed to e%haust available administrative remedies prior to ling suit but was in the process of
doing so when the motion to dismiss was led. McMinney v. 4arey, L7818=@:;, :88 +.:d 88>H ,>th 4ir. 6776-. RJS0T
)rison /itigation 0eform Act#s Be%haustion of remediesB re*uirement applied to a grievance procedure described in an inmate
handboo", even when it had not been formally adopted by a state administrative agency and even if the BeEectivenessB of the
grievance procedure Bmay have been unclear,B federal appeals court rules. 4oncepcion v. Morton, L781@:@<, :7; +.:d 8:@= ,:rd 4ir.
6776-. R677: 53 +eb.T
0astafarian prisoner#s e*ual protection challenge against 4alifornia prison hair length regulation should not have been dismissed
for failure to e%haust available administrative remedies when defendant prison o'cials failed to establish such a failure to e%haust.
+ederal appeals court rules that failure to e%haust is a defense, with the burden on the defendants to establish it. Kyatt v. &erhune,
L7718;<;H, :7< +.:d 87:: ,>th 4ir. 6776-. R677: 53 +eb.T
Jew .or" 2tate (epartment of 4orrections ,(F42- was immune under the Eleventh Amendment from a state prisoner#s federal
civil rights lawsuit challenging prison conditions. 4laims against prison superintendent and two guards were also dismissed because
of failure to prisoner to e%haust available administrative remedies, as re*uired by the )rison /itigation 0eform Act, @6 U.2.4. 2ec.
8>>=e,a-. Miller v. Jew .or" 2tate (epartment of 4orrections, 68= +. 2upp. 6d :>8 ,2.(.J... 6776-.RJS0T
)risoner did not demonstrate e%haustion of remedies in his federal civil rights claim over alleged inade*uate medical treatment
when his complaint did not involve any named defendants and no documentation was provided for any of his grievances. !lenn v.
4ampbell, L781;7;:, @7 +ed. App%. 68 ,;th 4ir. 6776-. RJS0T
)risoner must show that he e%hausted his available administrative remedies before ling a federal civil rights lawsuit over prison
conditions, rather than while his lawsuit is pending in court. +ailure to do so re*uires dismissal of the complaint under @6 U.2.4. 2ec.
8>>=e,a-. Mac" v. (eKitt, Jo. 781@8;:, @7 +ed. App%. :; ,;th 4ir. 6776-. RJS0T
)risoner did not ade*uately e%haust his available administrative remedies prior to ling suit when prison o'cials failed to respond
to many of his grievances and did respond to one of his grievances, since prisoner could have led a timely appeal but failed to do so.
&he doctrine of Bsubstantial complianceB did not apply to the prisoner#s e%haustion re*uirement when his cause of action accrued
after the eEective date of the )rison /itigation 0eform Act. /ewis v. Kashington, Jo. 771678=, :77 +.:d H6> ,=th 4ir. 6776-. RJS0T
)risoner was re*uired to e%haust available administrative remedies before beginning his federal civil rights lawsuit over o'cers#
alleged failure to protect him from assault by other prisoners. (ismissal of prisoner#s lawsuit would be without preIudice, allowing him
to e%haust remedies and then rele the lawsuit, when prisoner led his lawsuit before the U.2. 2upreme 4ourt made it clear, in its
decision in )orter v. Jussle, 866 2. 4t. >H: ,6776- that the remedies e%haustion re*uirement of the )rison /itigation 0eform Act, @6
U.2.4. 2ec. 8>>=e,a- Bapplies to all inmate suits about prison life, whether they involved general circumstances or particular
episodes.B )eoples v. 3eldoc", 686 +. 2upp. 6d 8@8 ,K.(.J... 6776-. RJS0T
)risoner who failed to comply with a grievance procedure established by the Massachusetts (epartment of 4orrections could not
proceed with his federal civil rights lawsuit claiming that correctional o'cers assaulted him. )laintiE was re*uired, under @6 U.2.4.
2ec. 8>>=e,a- of the )rison /itigation 0eform Act, to e%haust available administrative remedies before ling suit. +oster v. Murphy,
688 +. 2upp. 6d :<@ ,(. Mass. 6776-. RJS0T
4ounty Iail inmate who was transferred to a state facility before he commenced his federal civil rights lawsuit claiming that
correctional o'cers assaulted him had no available administrative remedies to e%haust before ling suit, since the county Iail#s
administrative remedies were only available to facility residents. /igon v. (oherty, 67H +. 2upp. 6d :H@ ,E.(.J... 6776-. R6776 53 JovT
)risoner#s failure to le a timely appeal from a disciplinary board#s decision denying his grievance was a failure to e%haust
administrative remedies, re*uiring dismissal of his lawsuit under the )rison /itigation 0eform Act, @6 U.2.4. 2ec. 8>>=e,a-. African1
American bi1se%ual prisoner could not pursue claim that he was treated diEerently than white heterose%ual prisoner involved in the
same incident of alleged se%ual conduct. &homas v. (oyle, L7818==:, :> +ed. App%. :=: ,=th 4ir. 6776-. RJS0T
)risoner failed to completely e%haust available administration remedies as re*uired by the )rison /itigation 0eform Act, @6 U.2.4.
2ec. 8>>=e,a- before ling his federal civil rights lawsuit claiming that o'cers used e%cessive force against him and that a prison
doctor subse*uently denied him medical care for resulting inIuries. 0odrigue? v. 9ahn, 67> +. 2upp. 6d :@@ ,2.(.J... 6776-. RJS0T
9$G1positive prisoner who allegedly suEered from A$(2 failed to e%haust his available administrative remedies under Jew .or"
state law as re*uired by the )rison /itigation 0eform Act, @6 U.2.4. 2ec. 8>>=e,a- before ling his federal civil rights lawsuit claiming
inade*uate medical care. (ismissal of the lawsuit without preIudice was re*uired when prisoner submitted an initial grievance, but
too" no additional steps when he received no response. 0eyes v. )un?al, 67; +. 2upp. 6d @:8 ,K.(.J... 6776-. RJS0T
+ederal appeals court holds that prisoner#s claims over his alleged denial of medication for high blood pressure, headaches, and a
heart condition were properly dismissed for failure to e%haust administrative remedies. &he burden was on the prisoner to specically
show, for each claim, the specic steps he had ta"en to pursue such remedies, and the result. 2mith v. 2helby 4ounty, L781<>:>>, :@
+ed. App%. 8HH ,;th 4ir. 6776-. R6776 53 FctT
)laintiE inmates# failure to demonstrate that they had e%hausted their available administrative remedies prior to bringing their
federal civil rights case over prison conditions did not deprive the federal court of the Iurisdiction to consider their case. A dismissal of
the inmates# appeal of the dismissal of their complaint on the basis that a notice of appeal only had the signature of one of the seven
inmate plaintiEs was improper, as the signature re*uirement was also not Iurisdictional. 4asanova v. (u3ois, L>>18H:H, 6H> +.:d 8@6
,8st 4ir. 6776-. RJS0T
&he fact that a former inmate was no longer a prisoner when he appealed the dismissal of his federal civil rights lawsuit for a
failure to e%haust administrative remedies was irrelevant11the dismissal was proper because he was still a prisoner when he initially
brought the lawsuit, and the facts showed that he failed to pursue his grievances through every available administrative route. (i%on
v. )age, L7818>=:, 6>8 +.:d @H< ,=th 4ir. 6776-. R6776 53 2epT
)risoner#s initiation of an BinformalB grievance concerning his alleged wrongful transfer from one facility to another was insu'cient
to meet his burden of e%hausting available administrative remedies before pursuing a federal civil rights lawsuit when he did not
complete the formal grievance procedure, but instead signed a form indicating that he was satised with the outcome of the informal
process. Killiams v. 5eEerson 4ounty 4ircuit 4ourt 4ler", L781<HH<, :: +ed. App%. =;: ,;th 4ir. 6776-. RJS0T
$nmate#s failure to pursue a grievance against a particular prison o'cial for allegedly ling a retaliatory report against him
because of the prisoner#s complaints about other o'cials results in a re*uirement that his federal civil rights claim against that o'cial
must be dismissed for failure to e%haust available administrative remedies. 0ichardson v. 9illman, 678 +. 2upp. 6d 666 ,2.(.J...
6776-. RJS0T
&he U.2. 2upreme 4ourt#s decision in )orter v. Jussle, 866 2. 4t. >H: ,6776-, ruling that claims of every sort relating to prison life11
including claims for e%cessive force against an individual inmate11must satisfy the e%haustion of remedies re*uirement of the )rison
/itigation 0eform Act, @6 U.2.4. 2ec. 8>>=e, applies retroactively to a case in which the complained of incident occurred before )orter
was decided. 9emphill v. Jew .or", 8>H +. 2upp. 66d <@; ,2.(.J... 6776-. RJS0T
Ar"ansas prisoner with asthma and Bpainful "notB in his side ade*uately stated claims for deliberate indiEerence to his medical
problems by prison farm doctor and nurse, based on alleged denials of treatment, and stated claim against warden and state
corrections director for Babdication of policy1ma"ing and oversightB responsibilities. Appeals court also nds prisoner ade*uately
e%hausted his available administrative remedies. /each v. Jorris, L781::8<, :@ +ed. App%. <87 ,Hth 4ir. 6776-. R6776 53 AugT
)risoner ade*uately e%hausted his available administrative remedies on his claim of deliberate indiEerence to his medical needs
before ling his federal civil rights lawsuit when he received a favorable result on his grievance, even though he did not ta"e his claim
to the highest level possible. )risoner was not re*uired to appeal a favorable grievance decision, and a further appeal would not have
given him any additional relief. 3rady v. Attygala, 8>; +. 2upp. 6d 878; ,4.(. 4al. 6776-. R6776 53 AugT
)risoner#s complaint that failure of prison o'cials to provide him with a "osher food diet violated his right to e%ercise his religion
should be dismissed without preIudice because of his failure to e%haust available administrative remedies provided under &ennessee
state law. Katler v. 4ampbell, L781<;@;, :: +ed. App%. =;@ ,;th 4ir. 6776-. RJS0T
$nmate#s alleged pursuit of his grievance through informal channels under Jew .or" law was relevant to the issue of whether he
had e%hausted available administrative remedies before pursuing his federal lawsuit. +ederal trial court allows prisoner to proceed
with conducting discovery concerning his informal grievance. )ere? v. 3lot, 8>< +. 2upp. 6d <:> ,2.(.J... 6776-. RJS0T
)risoner was re*uired to pursue a grievance with the prison#s chief medical o'cer before ling a federal civil rights lawsuit over
the alleged denial of necessary medical treatment even if, as he claimed, it would have been futile to do so. &he re*uirement of
e%haustion of available administrative remedies in @6 U.2.4. 2ec. 8>>=e,a- does not contain a futility e%ception. +arrell v. Addison,
L781=7>@, 781=86=, :@ +ed. App%. ;<7 ,87th 4ir. 6776-. RJS0T
Jew 5ersey state prison inmates who alleged racial discrimination and conspiracy to violate their rights on the basis of race
following the fatal stabbing of a correctional o'cer by a inmate could pursue their federal civil rights lawsuit without pursuing
supposed remedies described in state prison#s inmate handboo". 4ourt nds that grievance procedures described were not
su'ciently clear and that therefore no available administrative remedies e%isted for inmates to e%haust before ling suit. $n 0e
3ayside )rison /itigation, Jo. >=1<86=, 8>7 +. 2upp. 66d =<< ,(.J.5. 6776-. R6776 53 5ulT
)risoner did not show that correctional facility#s institutional inspector violated his right to access to the courts by refusing to issue
him grievance forms which he could use to challenge his conditions of connement when prisoner did not claim that there was no
other source for the forms or that he had made other attempts to pursue his grievance. Katley v. !oodman, L781:H;7, :8 +ed. App%.
8;> ,;th 4ir. 6776-. R6776 53 5ulT
)risoner who claimed correctional o'cers severely beat him was re*uired to e%haust available administrative remedies before
ling suit despite the fact that they could not lead to monetary awards. Actions including the disciplining of the o'cers or the transfer
of the prisoner to another facility where he would not be under their supervision were possible responses to an administrative
complaint, and the administrative e%haustion re*uirement of the )rison /itigation 0eform Act, @6 U.2.4. 2ec. 8>>=e,a- re*uires a
prisoner to e%haust any procedure that has authority to ta"e Bsome actionB in response to his complaint. /ar"in v. !alloway, L771
8@8@, 6;; +.:d =8H ,=th 4ir. 6778-. RJS0T
)risoner who claimed that correctional o'cials had subIected him to a substantial ris" of being attac"ed and sodomi?ed by other
prisoners by placing him in a particular prison unit without ade*uate security and protection had to e%haust available administrative
remedies before bringing suit in federal court. E%haustion re*uirement was intended to curtail frivolous prisoner litigation, and by
8>><, prisoners led more than 6<X of the cases led in federal trial courts, which 4ongress concluded included more frivolous
lawsuits than suits pursued by Bany other class of persons.B &orres v. Alvarado, 8@: +. 2upp. 6d 8=6 ,(. )uerto 0ico 6778-. RJS0T
)risoner#s lawsuit claiming he was subIected to a hot prison cell with poor ventilation which caused respiratory distress was
properly dismissed for failure to e%haust available administrative remedies. Khile the prisoner did le and pursue an administrative
grievance, he did not show that he ever appealed the denial of the grievance. /yons13ey v. 4urtis, L7818<=@, :7 +ederal Appendi%
:=; ,;th 4ir. 6776-. R6776 53 5unT
&he )rison /itigation 0eform Act re*uires a court, before analy?ing whether a prisoner has stated a federal civil rights claim under
the Eighth Amendment, to rst assess whether the plaintiE has e%hausted available administrative remedies. )risoner#s claims were
therefore dismissed, without preIudice, for failure to do so. 2errano v. Alvarado, 8;> +. 2upp. 6d 8@ ,(. )uerto 0ico 6778-. RJS0T
A prisoner#s federal civil rights claim does not accrue until he has e%hausted available administrative remedies. )risoner must
specically plead such e%haustion in their complaint. E%haustion re*uirement applies whether the claim is pursued in federal or state
court. Martin v. Fhio (ept. of 0ehabilitation and 4orrection, Jo. 774A:=, =@> J.E.6d =H= ,Fhio App. 6778-. R6776 53 MayT
2ince the passage of the )rison /itigation 0eform Act, courts may no longer e%amine available grievance procedures to determine
whether they would serve the inmate#s intended purpose. 2tate of +lorida has adopted a rule giving prisoners a right to le a
grievance regarding reprisals against inmates who have led complaints, and prisoner could not pursue a lawsuit without rst
pursuing such a grievance. 9ollingsworth v. 3rown, Jo. 8(771:86;, =HH 2o. 6d 87=H ,+la. App. 6778-. R6776 53 MayT
A prisoner#s assertion that pursuing available administrative remedies would be futile did not e%cuse his failure to pursue prison
grievance procedures before ling his federal civil rights lawsuit, as re*uired by the )rison /itigation 0eform Act, @6 U.2.4. 2ec.
8>>=e,a-. +reytes v. /aboy, 8@: +. 2upp. 6d 8H= ,(. )uerto 0ico-. RJS0T
Unanimous U.2. 2upreme 4ourt rules that Be%haustion of remediesB re*uirement of )rison /itigation 0eform Act applies to all
lawsuits by inmates about prison life, including those involving particular incidents, such as an allegation of e%cessive use of force by
a correctional o'cer, as well as those that involve general circumstances or conditions. )orter v. Jussle, 6776 U.2. /e%is 8:=:. R6776
53 AprT
)rison /itigation 0eform Act#s provisions re*uiring the e%haustion of available administrative remedies before proceeding with a
lawsuit did not apply to prisoner#s Jew .or" state law negligence claim based on the alleged failure of correctional o'cers and prison
o'cials to protect him from assaults by other inmates. June? v. !oord, 8=6 +. 2upp. 6d @8= ,2.(.J... 6778-. RJS0T
)risoner#s lawsuit, over incident which occurred prior to the enactment of the )rison /itigation 0eform Act, with its e%haustion of
remedies re*uirement, but which was led after the enactment of the law, was properly dismissed for failure to e%haust remedies by
ling a written complaint with the prison. Mc4oy v. !ilbert, Jo. 7718:<@, 6=7 +.:d <7: ,=th 4ir. 6778-. R6776 53 MarT
)risoner may have su'ciently e%hausted BavailableB administrative remedies if, as he claimed, prison o'cials failed to comply
with his re*uests to be furnished with grievance forms. Miller v. Jorris, L77187<:, 6@= +.:d =:; ,Hth 4ir. 6778-. RJS0T
+urther proceedings ordered to determine whether prisoner e%hausted available administrative remedies in lawsuit alleging denial
of his right to practice his 5ewish religion. )laintiE alleged that prison o'cials prevented him from pursuing administrative remedies
further by either stating or implying that no further avenues were available for him. /yon v. Mrol, L771:6H:, 6=7 +.:d <;: ,Hth 4ir.
6778-. RJS0T
)risoner had to e%haust available administrative remedies before pursuing his federal civil rights lawsuit claiming that he was
subIected to repeated harassment by prison o'cials in retaliation for his success in winning a prior lawsuit against the prison health
services director for refusing to authori?e his liver transplant. 5ohnson v. /itscher, L7716>=H, 6;7 +.:d H6; ,=th 4ir. 6778-. R6776 53
+ebT
)risoner su'ciently e%hausted his administrative remedies for his grievances claiming that he had been sprayed with pesticides in
a prison housing unit, even though he had not specically named the defendants in his lawsuit in his grievances. &he grievances
alleged the relevant factual circumstances, and re*uested the identities of the individuals directly responsible for the spraying. $rvin v.
Qamora, Jo. >>4G6:<7, 8;8 +. 2upp. 6d 886< ,2.(. 4al. 6778-. R6776 53 +ebT
4ourt would dismiss all of prisoner#s federal civil rights claims when he had e%hausted his available administrative remedies on
some, but not all, of his claims. 0ivera v. Khitman, Jo. 4iv. A.>>1<@@, 8;8 +. 2upp. 6d ::= ,(.J.5. 6778-. RJS0T
)risoner could not pursue civil rights lawsuit over alleged inade*uate medical treatment when he failed to ever submit a grievance
under an available four stage prison administrative process. Massey v. 9elman, L7718@=H, 6<> +.:d ;@8 ,=th 4ir. 6778-. R6776 53 5anT
)risoner#s claim that he was assaulted by o'cers in retaliation for his participation in a prison disturbance was subIect to the
e%haustion of remedies provisions of the )rison /itigation 0eform Act, and was properly dismissed when he failed to pursue
administrative grievance. &he purpose of this re*uirement was not only to bloc" frivolous lawsuits, but also to permit prison o'cials
to attempt to rst address complaints internally. 2mith v. Qachary, L>>1@7H@, 6<< +.:d @@; ,=th 4ir. 6778-. RJS0T
)risoner had to e%haust available administrative grievances before pursuing a federal civil rights lawsuit over prison nurse#s
alleged deliberate indiEerence to his medical needs. B2ubstantialB compliance with the e%haustion of remedies re*uirement was not
enough. Kright v. 9ollingsworth, Jo. >>1@77;:, 6;7 +.:d :<= ,<th 4ir. 6778-. RJS0T
6>=P8:< )risoner was re*uired to e%haust administrative remedies before proceeding with lawsuit challenging prison drug testing
policies, which constituted a claim about Bprison conditions,B but he was not re*uired to do so on claims that prison o'cials too"
retaliatory disciplinary actions against him individually. !iano v. !oord, L>H16;8>, 6<7 +.:d 8@; ,6nd 4ir. 6778-.
6>@PHH )risoner did not need to e%haust administrative remedies before pursuing federal civil rights lawsuit for particular,
individuali?ed instance of alleged retaliation by correctional o'cerU inmate claimed o'cer led disciplinary charges against him
because of his complaints to prison authorities about the o'cer#s alleged misconduct. /awrence v. !oord, Jo. >>17676, 6:H +.:d 8H6
,6nd 4ir. 6778-.
6>;P88< Under the )rison /itigation 0eform Act, prisoners must e%haust available administrative remedies before ling a lawsuit,
even when they are see"ing only money damages and money damages may not be obtained through the administrative grievance
process. 3ooth v. 4hurner, L>>18>;@, 868 2. 4t. 8H8> ,6778-.
6>;P867 Ar"ansas prisoner#s lawsuit was properly dismissed for failure to e%haust available administrative remediesU even if
prisoner submitted evidence to the appeals court that he may have e%hausted remedies on one of his claims, he never showed that
to the trial court, and the burden to do so was his. McAlphin v. Morgan, L>>1@886, 68; +.:d ;H7 ,Hth 4ir. 6777-.
6>6P<> U)(A&EP U.2. 2upreme 4ourt to decide whether prisoner who claimed that correctional o'cers used e%cessive force against
him was re*uired to e%haust available administrative remedies before ling a federal civil rights lawsuit for damages, even if money
damages could not be awarded in the administrative proceeding. 3ooth v. 4hurner, 4o., L>=1=@H= Y >=1=@HH, 67; +.:d 6H> ,:rd 4ir.-,
reported in 5ail Y )risoner /aw 3ulletin, Jo. 6H=, p. 8;H ,Jov. 6777-, cert. granted, Jo. 7716H>, 868 2. 4t. :== ,6777-.
6>8P:H +ormer prisoner, who sued over delay in treatment of chee" abscess, was not a BprisonerB re*uired to e%haust available
administrative remedies before pursuing a federal civil rights lawsuit. 3urton v. 4ity of )hiladelphia, 868 +. 2upp. 6d H87 ,E.(. )a.
6777-.
E($&F0#2 JF&EP &wo federal courts of appeals, facing the issue of released prisoners, both held that plaintiEs who le prison
condition lawsuits after their release from custody are not BprisonersB re*uired to e%haust administrative remedies under the )/0A.
)age v. &orrey, >H1<;<6;, 678 +.:d 88:; ,>th 4ir. 6777-U !reig v. !oord, >=1>:@7, 8;> +.:d 8;< ,6nd 4ir. 8>>>-.
6>;P868 )risoner ade*uately e%hausted administrative remedies on his e%cessive force claim against o'cers when he attempted
to le his grievance, but it was not processedU the merits of his claim were later e%amined and reIected by the highest o'cial in the
state corrections department. 4amp v. 3rennan, Jo. >>1:HH=, 68> +.:d 6=> ,:rd 4ir. 6777-.
6H>P87 +ederal appeals court rules that provision of the )rison /itigation 0eform Act re*uiring the e%haustion of administrative
remedies before pursuing a federal civil rights lawsuit does not apply to a prisoner#s claim that correctional o'cers physically
assaulted him without any lawful Iustication. Jussle v. Killette, Jo. >>17:H=, 66@ +.:d >< ,6nd 4ir. 6777-.
6H>P> )risoner#s failure to name the warden or correctional commissioner in his administrative grievances concerning alleged
denial of prescribed treatment for his hernia did not constitute a failure to e%haust administrative remedies so as to re*uire dismissal
of his subse*uent federal civil rights lawsuit against them. 3rown v. 2i"es, Jo. >H1 7H=6=, 686 +.:d 867< ,88th 4ir. 6777-.
RJS0T 2ome prisoners asserting Eighth Amendment claims substantially complied with the administrative e%haustion re*uirement
of the )rison /itigation 0eform Act prior to ling their lawsuit, but some did not. 4urry v. 2cott, Jo. >>1:@=@, 6@> +.:d @>: ,;th 4ir.
6777-. RJS0T )risoner#s failure to e%haust administrative remedies does not deprive federal court of IurisdictionU prisoner failed to
e%haust administrative remedies, however, so trial court should have dismissed his claims. 4helette v. 9arris, Jo. >>18=<>, 66> +.:d
;H@ ,Hth 4ir. 6777-.
RJS0T )risoner#s e%cessive1use1of1force claim was subIect to the e%haustion of remedies provision of the )rison /itigation 0eform
ActU section of the Act containing the e%haustion re*uirements was not unconstitutionally vague. Jo. >>1H7<<, 66: +.:d 86<> ,88th
4ir. 6777-.
RJS0T )risoners were re*uired to e%haust administrative remedies on their e%cessive force claims even when they could not receive
money damages through administrative proceedings. Munc"les El v. &oombs, Jo. >H1 68H8, 68< +.:d ;@7 ,;th 4ir. 6777-.
6H;P8<@ +ederal appeals court rules that Mansas state prisoner#s lawsuit over his private prison industry wor" assignment could
proceed, at least insofar as it sought money damages, despite failure to e%haust available administrative remedies, when
administrative remedies did not provide for awards of money. Miller v. Menghini, L>>1:@78, 68: +.:d 86@@ ,87th 4ir. 6777-.
6H=P8;H )risoner who claimed that correctional o'cers used e%cessive force against him was re*uired to e%haust available
administrative remedies before ling a federal civil rights lawsuit for damages, even if money damages could not be awarded in the
administrative proceeding. 3ooth v. 4hurner, 4o., L>=1=@H= Y >=1=@HH, 67; +.:d 6H> ,:rd 4ir. 6777-.
E($&F0#2 JF&EP &he &hird 4ircuit 4ourt of Appeals had previously reached the same result in a case involving a 3ivens ,direct
lawsuit under a constitutional provision, rather than a statute, such as @6 U.2.4. 2ec. 8>H:, applicable only to those acting under
state law- federal civil rights lawsuit against federal correctional o'cials. Jyhuis v. 0eno, L>H1:<@:, 67@ +.:d ;< ,:d 4ir. 6777-.
6H:P87; )risoner#s claim that his property had been lost or destroyed during a prison riot could not be the subIect of a federal civil
rights lawsuit when he failed to pursue an available administrative appeal from the denial of his administrative grievance over the
items. +eliciano v. 2ervicios 4orreccionales, => +. 2upp. 6d :8 ,(. )uerto 0ico 6777-.
6H8P=7 )ersons civilly committed as se%ually violent predators under 4alifornia statute are not BprisonersB for purposes of )rison
/itigation 0eform ActU Act#s e%haustion of remedies and nancial reporting re*uirements, therefore, do not apply to them. )age v.
&orrey, Jo. >H1 <;<6;, >H1<;<>8, 678 +.:d 88:; ,>th 4ir. 6777-.
6H8P=8 &e%as prisoner pursuing only money damages for alleged failure to provide medical treatment for a ruptured eardrum did
not need to e%haust administrative remedies when state administrative remedies did not allow for awards of moneyU appeals court
panel urges full +ifth 4ircuit federal appeals court to reconsider this rule, however. Kright v. 9ollingsworth, Jo. >>1@77;:,678 +.:d ;;:
,<th 4ir. 6777-.
6==P< )risoner who failed to e%haust available prison grievance procedures could not pursue federal civil rights lawsuit for
damages over correctional o'cer#s alleged failure to protect him from assault by another prisonerU the fact that the grievance
procedure did not provide a money damages remedy did not alter the result. /angford v. 4ouch, <7 +. 2upp. 6d <@@ ,E.(.Ga. 8>>>-.
6==P87 E($&F0#2 JF&EP 2ee Killiams v. Jorris, Jo. >>18=@:, 8=; +.:d 87H> ,Hth 4ir. 8>>>-. ,0astafarian prisoner#s lawsuit against
prison rule prohibiting him from wearing his hair in Bdreadloc"sB was improperly dismissed because prisoner complied with )rison
/itigation 0eform Act#s Be%haustion of administrative remediesB re*uirement, since his grievance had been denied by the Karden and
the Assistant (irector of the state (epartment of 4orrections at the time the court acted-.
6=HP6< E%haustion of remedies re*uirement of )rison /itigation 0eform Act did not apply retroactively to bar lawsuit already
pendingU federal appeals court reinstates prisoner#s lawsuit complaining that o'cials prevented him from meeting with prison
chaplain. 2alahuddin v. Mead, L>=16<66, 8=@ +.:d 6=8 ,6nd 4ir. 8>>>-.
6=HP6H +ailure to ade*uately supervise Iail guards to prevent se%ual harassment of female prisoners results in civil rights liability
for (istrict of 4olumbiaU plaintiE prisoner asserted that she and others were forced to participate in Bstrip1showsB and Be%oticB dancing
for guardsU Be%haustion of remediesB provision of )rison /itigation 0eform Act did not apply. Jewby v. (istrict of 4olumbia, <> +. 2upp.
6d :< ,(.(.4. 8>>>-.
6=>P@8 )rison /itigation 0eform Act did not re*uire 4alifornia prisoner to e%haust administrative remedies before pursuing his
federal civil rights lawsuit for damages over alleged misconduct, including assault, by prison guardU grievance process did not have
any available remedy which could have granted him the damages he sought in the lawsuit. 0umbles v. 9ill, Jo. >H18;=>@, 8H6 +.:d
87;@ ,>th 4ir. 8>>>-.
6H6PHH )risoner was re*uired to pursue available administrative remedies over alleged failure to protect him against rape by a
fellow prisoner even though the damages he was see"ing in a fede
al civil rights lawsuit were not available in the administrative processU appeals court nds, however, that prisoner Bsubstantially
compliedB with e%haustion re*uirement. Kyatt v. /eonard, Jo. >H1@8;8, 8>: +.:d H=; ,;th 4ir. 8>>>-.
6H:P87= )risoner#s lawsuit alleging that he was assaulted by a corrections o'cer constituted a claim concerning Bprison
conditions,B re*uiring him to e%haust available administrative remedies before lingU since he did not do so, the suit was properly
dismissed. +reeman v. +rancis, L>H1@6HH, 8>; +.:d ;@8 ,;th 4ir. 8>>>-.
6H@P86: )risoner#s claim that re*uiring him to "eep his cell windows closed for three days and nights was cruel and unusual
punishment did not allege a physical inIury as re*uired by the )rison /itigation 0eform Act or a su'cient deprivation to be an Eighth
Amendment violationU state negligence claim was barred for failure to comply with notice of claim re*uirement. 2arro v. Esse% 4ounty
4orrectional +acility, H@ +. 2upp. 6d 8=< ,(. Mass. 6777-.
6H@P86@ !eorgia prisoner#s claim that a correctional employee se%ually abused him was subIect to dismissal when he failed to
e%haust available administrative grievance procedures before ling his federal civil rights lawsuit. (illard v. 5ones, H> +. 2upp. 6d 8:;6
,J.(. !a. 6777-.
6H<P8:< Kisconsin appeals court rules that a state notice of claim statute was not an Badministrative remedyB that a plaintiE
prisoner was re*uired to Be%haustB before proceeding with his federal civil rights lawsuit, led in state
court, challenging the e%clusion of all material containing nudity or pornography from state prisons. /edford, 2tate E% 0el., v. 4ir 4t.
for (ane 4ounty, Jo. >>17>:>1K, <>> J.K.6d @< ,Kis. App. 8>>>-.
6H<P8:; +ederal appeals court upholds Iury award totaling VH:,6<7 against a correctional o'cer who bro"e a prisoner#s nose while
beating him in his cell and against fellow o'cer who was Bdeliberately indiEerentB to prisoner#s safety. KolE v. Moore, Jo. >;1@7H7,
8>> +.:d :6@ ,;th 4ir. 8>>>-.
6H=P8;@ Fne1year statute of limitations for bringing a federal civil rights lawsuit in /ouisiana was e%tended during the time the
prisoner was pursuing his available administrative remedies, as he was legally re*uired to do under the )rison /itigation 0eform ActU
plaintiE stated a claim for deliberate indiEerence to treatment of his bro"en Iaw. 9arris v. 9egmann, Jo. >H1:7;8=, 8>H +.:d 8<: ,<th
4ir. 8>>>-.
RJS0T $nmate did not fail to e%haust administrative remedies when he failed to sign and date prison grievance form he submitted,
or by failing to appeal denial of his grievance when he was told that an appeal was precluded. Miller v. &anner, Jo. >H1>8<:, 8>; +.:d
88>7 ,88th 4ir. 8>>>-.
6=<P8=7 &e%as prisoner was deemed to have e%hausted administrative remedies when he properly led grievance, despite the fact
that prison system did not address some of his arguments in its response to his grievanceU lawsuit over alleged failure to protect him
from assault by another prisoner could proceed. )owe v. Ennis, L>H1@76:@, 8== +.:d :>: ,<th 4ir. 8>>>-.
6;HP<< )risoner was re*uired to e%haust available administrative remedies before he could pursue lawsuit for money damages
over o'cer#s alleged assault on himU unavailability of money damages as a remedy in administrative proceedings did not alter result.
Moore v. 2mith, 8H +.2upp.6d 8:;7 ,J.(. !a. 8>>H-.
Z Editor#s JoteP $n the following cases, courts have held that when a prisoner sues for monetary damages, the prisoner does not
have to e%haust his administrative remedies because monetary damages are not BavailableB under prison grievance proceduresP
!arrett v. 9aw", L>;1 8@6>, 86= +.:d 86;: ,87th 4ir. 8>>=-U /unsford v. 5umao1 As, L>;1<;<7:, 8<< +.:d 88=H ,>th 4ir. 8>>H-U
9ollimon v. (e&ella, ; +.2upp.6d >;H ,J.(. $ll. 8>>H-U 5ac"son v. (e&ella, >>H +.2upp. >78 ,J.(. $ll. 8>>H-U 2anders v. Elyea, 8>>H K/
;=;8< ,J.(. $ll. +eb. 87, 8>>H-U 0usso v. )almer, >>7 +.2upp. 87@= ,J.(. $ll. 8>>H-U )olite v. 3arbarin, 8>>H K/ 8@;;H= ,2.(.J... March
6<, 8>>H- ,unpublished-.
6=7PH> )risoner#s failure to e%haust administrative grievance remedies for his claim that correctional o'cials did not protect him
from attac" by another prisoner re*uired dismissal of federal civil rights lawsuitU failure to protect claim was a claim concerning prison
conditions. 2oto v. Elston, >>: +.2upp. 8;: ,K.(.J... 8>>H-.
6=8P87: )risoner who claimed that he suEered only emotional inIury ,and no physical inIury- when correctional o'cer allegedly
told others that he was Bdying of 9$GB could not pursue federal civil rights claimU section of )rison /itigation 0eform Act barring such
suits did not violate e*ual protection or his right of access to the courts. (avis v. (istrict of 4olumbia, Jo. >=1=7@:, 8<H +.:d 8:@6
,(.4. 4ir. 8>>H-.
6=@P8<7 )risoner#s e%haustion of administrative remedies after ling federal civil rights lawsuit over prison wor" assignment did not
e%cuse his failure to do so prior to ling lawsuit, as re*uired by )rison /itigation 0eform Act. Underwood v. Kilson, L>=1@7<:;, 8<8
+.:d 6>6 ,<th 4ir. 8>>H-.
Z Editor#s JoteP 2ee also 9arris v. !underman, :7 +.2upp.6d ;;@ ,2.(.J... 8>>>-, ruling that @6 U.2.4. 2ec. 8>>=e,a- of the )rison
/itigation 0eform Act re*uired the dismissal of a lawsuit led by a prisoner claiming that correctional o'cers severely beat him, when
the plaintiE prisoner failed to ever le an available administrative grievance concerning the alleged incident.
RJS0T )rovision of )rison /itigation 0eform Act concerning e%haustion of administrative remedies did not apply retroactively and
plaintiE prisoner had BsubstantiallyB complied with e%haustion of remedies re*uirement. 3ishop v. /ewis, L><18<7:<, 8<< +.:d 87>@
,>th 4ir. 8>>H-.
RJS0T )risoner did not have to e%haust administrative remedies before proceeding with federal civil rights lawsuit alleging prison
o'cials failed to protection him from assault by another prisoner, since internal grievance proceeding would not have compensated
him for his inIuries. +reeman v. !odine?, >>; +.2upp. H66 ,J.(. $ll. 8>>H-.
6;8P8:; /awsuit alleging that correctional o'cers themselves assaulted prisoner was not a lawsuit over Bprison conditionsB
re*uiring the e%haustion of available administrative remedies under the )rison /itigation 0eform Act, as lawsuit alleging o'cers failed
to protect prisoner from assault by other inmates would have been. 0odrigue? v. 3erbary, >>6 +.2upp. <>6 ,K.(.J... 8>>H-. Z Editor#s
JoteP $n the following cases, prisoners were re*uired to e%haust administrative remedies before pursuing federal civil rights lawsuitsP
&afoya v. 2immons, 88; +.:d @H> ,&able- ,87th 4ir. 8>>=- ,inmate must e%haust administrative remedies regardless of whether or not
the administrative action is futile-U Morgan v. Ari?ona (ept. of 4orrections, >=; +.2upp. H>6 ,(. Ari?. 8>>=- ,inmate#s claim that
prisoner o'cials threatened his safety and allowed other inmates to assault him considered a prison condition and therefore must be
grieved-U Midgette v. (oe, 8>>= U.2. (ist. /e%is 8<>8H, 8>>= K/ ;:@6H7 ,2.(.J...- ,inmate must e%haust his administrative remedies
in a failure to protect claim-U Mitchell v. !ome?, 8>>= K/ :7<6=:, Jo. 4>;1:>:> +M2, ,J.(. 4al. 5une 6, 8>>=- ,inmate must e%haust
administrative remedies for a claim that prison guards incited other inmates to assault him-U Mc4oy v. 2cott, 8>>= K/ @8@8H<, Jo. 4
>=17@=6 &E9,)0-, ,J.(. 4al. 5uly 8<, 8>>=- ,inmate must e%haust administrative remedies for a claim that prison o'cials ignored his
concerns about problems with his cellmate-.
6;8P8:= )risoner#s federal lawsuit about alleged delay in cataract surgery on his eye dismissed when he could not show that he
pursued all administrative appeals available to him in the 4alifornia correctional system. Ale%androai v. 4alif. (ept. of 4orrections, >H<
+.2upp. >;H ,2.(. 4al. 8>>=-.
RJS0T )risoner#s lawsuit claiming that prison o'cials retaliated against him after he led a lawsuit against another prison o'cial was
properly dismissed due to his failure to e%haust administrative remedies as re*uired by the )rison /itigation 0eform Act. Khite v.
Mc!innis, 8:8 +.:d <>: ,;th 4ir. 8>>=-.
6:HP8@= +ederal )rison /itigation 0eform Act becomes law, ma"es numerous changes in prison litigation, including scope of
inIunctive orders, standards for termination of inIunctive orders, amount of attorneys# fees, standard for prisoner release orders in
overcrowding cases, prisoner payment of ling fees and court costs, barring inmates who repetitively le frivolous suits from further
lings, no awards for mentalSemotional distress in the absence of physical inIury, and revocation of federal prisoner#s good time
credits if they le malicious lawsuits or testify falsely, among other highlights.