10. Cruel and unusual punishment.

U.S. District Court SECURITY

Austin v. Wilkinson, 189 F.Supp.2d 719 (N.D.Ohio 2002). A class of current and former prisoners at a high maximum ,security prison brought a [section] 1983 action seeking injunctive relief, alleging denial of due process in their placement and retention at the facility. The district court held that: (1) the inmates had a liberty interest in their conditions of confinement; (2) the inmates were entitled to due process protection in decisions to send them and retain them at the facility; (3) the inmates were denied due process in the decisions to send them to, and retain them at, the facility; and (4) new corrections policies failed to provide adequate due process safeguards. The court held that the combination of conditions faced by inmates at the high maximum security prison imposed an atypical and significant hardship, giving the inmates a liberty interested protected by due process. The court noted that inmates in the prison were subjected to lengthy stays of indefinite duration, had extremely limited contact with other individuals, were never allowed outdoor recreation, were subject to extremely intrusive restrictions when they were allowed out of their cells, and were denied parole eligibility.

The court held that inmates sent to the prison were entitled to minimal due process consisting of: (1) twenty-four hour advance notice of all specific evidence relied upon to support reasons for reclassification; (2) a requirement that an inmate be allowed to appear at his reclassification hearing and present evidence, including witnesses and documents; and (3) a requirement that the reclassification committee issue a written statement specifically describing evidence relied on and reasons for its recommendation. "Having found that the defendants violated, and will continue to violate, the plaintiffs' constitutionally liberty interest," the court ordered the parties to file proposed injunctive orders to correct the violations. (Ohio State Penitentiary)

U.S. District Court NOISE SANITATION TEMPERATURE

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...