Facilities.

15. Facilities U.S. Appeals Court Carney v. Craven, 40 Fed.Appx. 48 (6th Cir. 2002). A state prisoner brought a civil rights LIGHTS action under [section] 1983. The district court dismissed the action and the appeals court affirmed, as modified. The appeals court held that the prisoner failed to show that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his request to fix a faulty light which was producing a strobe-like effect, and which allegedly caused him headaches and eye pain. The court noted that the prisoner's request to have the bulb repaired was not recklessly disregarded, but rather, a new light bulb was not immediately available, and the prisoner was ultimately moved to a new cell eleven days after reporting the problem. (Tennessee) U.S. District Court Citizens Advy. Comm. on Priv. Pris. v. U.S. D.O.J., 197 F.Supp.2d 226 (W.D.Pa. 2001). A NEPA--National citizens' committee sued the U.S. Department of Environmental Justice and the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Protection Act alleging that the defendants failed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) ENVIRONMENTAL when they awarded a contract to build and operate IMPACT a new prison to a private company. The district court held that the committee had standing to bring the action and that the Bureau was required to prepare a final environmental assessment. According to the court, the Bureau "basically admitting that it had violated NEPA" ordered a halt to work on the facility and re-examined the environmental impact. The court held that the Bureau violated the provisions of NEPA when it initially awarded the contract. But the court found that the Bureau had cured its initial NEPA violations and was not required to file an Environmental Impact Statement, and allowed the project to proceed. (Cornell Corrections, Inc., Federal Bureau of Prisons, Clearfield County, Pennsylvania) U.S. Appeals Court Clement v. Gomez, 298 F.3d 898 (9th Cir...