9. Conditions of confinement.

U.S. District Court TEMPERATURE SMOKE EXERCISE SANITATION

Caldwell v. District of Columbia, 201 F.Supp.2d 27 (D.D.C. 2001). An inmate filed a [section] 1983 action against the District of Columbia and several employees of its corrections department, alleging unconstitutional conditions of confinement and denial of medical care. A jury entered a verdict in favor of the inmate, on all claims, and awarded $174,178. The appeals court granted judgment for the defendants as a matter of law, in part, denied judgment for the defendants in part, and did not reduce the damage award. The court found that statements by the inmate's attorney during his closing argument, suggesting specific dollar amounts to be considered by the jury, did not warrant a new trial. The appeals court held that findings that conditions were unconstitutional were supported by evidence, as were findings that officials were deliberately indifferent to the inmate's serious medical needs.

The appeals court held that the Prison Litigation Reform At (PLRA) does not require a prisoner to allege or prove serious, permanent physical injury in order to bring an action for violation of his constitutional rights.

The appeals court held that the prisoner sufficiently alleged a "physical injury" for the purposes of PLRA, with allegations that excessive heat in his cell made him dizzy, dehydrated, and disoriented, gave him a severe rash, and that smoke from rolled toilet paper "wicks" and frequent use of mace gave him bronchial irritation and a runny nose. The inmate also alleged that the small bunk aggravated his arthritis.

According to the court, the inmate did not have to allege that excessive noise in the cell block caused him hearing loss, where his contention was that the noise levels contributed a deprivation of sleep.

The appeals court held that the inmate's exposure to feces in his cell, foul water, filth, excessive heat, smoke, and mace, and the lack of outdoor exercise, resulted in a substantial risk of serious harm.

The appeals court upheld the inmate's deliberate indifference claim, noting that it was supported by evidence that treatment for the inmate's glaucoma and skin cancer was delayed for substantial periods. (Maximum Security Facility, Lorton Correctional Complex, District of Columbia)

U.S. District Court BEDS FLOOR-SLEEPING MEDICAL CARE TOILETS

Carlyle v. Aubrey, 189 F.Supp.2d 660 (W.D.Ky. 2001). A former prisoner brought a [section] 1983 action against a county jail...