12.07.2015 Views

Supermax Prisons and the Constitution: Liability ... - Supermaxed

Supermax Prisons and the Constitution: Liability ... - Supermaxed

Supermax Prisons and the Constitution: Liability ... - Supermaxed

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

ShelterShelter issues may arise in <strong>the</strong> ECU, dependinglargely on <strong>the</strong> age of <strong>the</strong> facility. Shelter encompasses<strong>the</strong> overall physical environment of <strong>the</strong>unit, including lighting, heating, cooling, ventilation,noise, fire safety, <strong>and</strong> access to hygienematerials (e.g., toilet paper) <strong>and</strong> hot <strong>and</strong> cold runningwater. Examples of shelter-related litigationare highlighted below.Lighting. The usual claim has to do with inadequatelighting or natural light in <strong>the</strong> cell. A differentissue can arise in ECUs that leave some lighton in <strong>the</strong> cell all night to facilitatesecurity checks. Inmatesclaim that <strong>the</strong> constant lightdisturbs <strong>the</strong>ir sleep.Lighting was an issue in <strong>the</strong>Wisconsin case (Jones’El v.Berge) discussed in <strong>the</strong> chapteron mental health issues.Inmates could turn <strong>the</strong>ir celllights from high to low, but notoff. Even at low, <strong>the</strong> light wasbright enough to read by. Testimonyconvinced <strong>the</strong> court that<strong>the</strong> constant lighting was particularlydisorienting to inmates with seriousmental illness. 68 In <strong>the</strong> settlement that followed<strong>the</strong> court’s preliminary injunction, <strong>the</strong> defendantsagreed to lower <strong>the</strong> nighttime lighting levels inConditions thatthreaten <strong>the</strong> healthof inmates can be<strong>the</strong> basis for afinding of cruel<strong>and</strong> unusualpunishment.by a flashlight occasionally shining on <strong>the</strong>m asofficers make rounds?Severe deprivation. In ano<strong>the</strong>r case, concerning<strong>the</strong> conditions of confinement at Oklahoma StatePenitentiary, an ECU inmate alleged that he wasstripped of his clothing <strong>and</strong> placed in a cell withouta mattress, blankets, or bedding <strong>and</strong> with minimaltoilet paper, no hot water, <strong>and</strong> inadequateventilation. Nighttime temperatures in <strong>the</strong> celldropped to <strong>the</strong> mid-50s. The inmate alleged that<strong>the</strong>se conditions lasted perhaps weeks or months.The allegations were serious enough to warrant afull trial. 70Multiple issues. In 1996, aninmate at <strong>the</strong> Cook County Jailin Illinois alleged chronic pestinfestations in his living unit—claiming that roaches wereeverywhere <strong>and</strong> that roaches<strong>and</strong> mice frequently ran acrosshim at night—<strong>and</strong> stated aclaim under <strong>the</strong> EighthAmendment. 71 This case alsoincluded allegations that lightingin <strong>the</strong> inmate’s living unitwas so weak that reading hurthis eyes; <strong>the</strong> court said that <strong>the</strong> lighting problemwas sufficient to preclude dismissal of <strong>the</strong> issue<strong>and</strong> warrant fur<strong>the</strong>r factual inquiry into <strong>the</strong>allegations.37O<strong>the</strong>r Conditions of Confinement<strong>the</strong> cells. 69The obvious lesson from Jones’El is that officialsshould examine (1) whe<strong>the</strong>r constant nighttimelighting is needed in <strong>the</strong> ECU <strong>and</strong> (2) how intense<strong>the</strong> lighting must be to serve its purpose. Aresleeping inmates less disturbed by nightlights orSanitationOften closely related to shelter <strong>and</strong>/or food, sanitationissues are fairly straightforward. Conditionsthat threaten <strong>the</strong> health of inmates can be <strong>the</strong> basisfor a finding of cruel <strong>and</strong> unusual punishment.68Jones’El, 164 F. Supp. 2d at 1118.69Freeman v. Berge, 68 Fed. Appx. 738, 2003 WL 21462603 (7th Cir. 2003).70Mitchell v. Maynard, 80 F.3d 1433 (10th Cir. 1996).71Antonelli v. Sheahan, 81 F.3d 1422 (7th Cir. 1996).

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!