wilson
seiter
argued
january
decided
june
petitioner
wilson
ohio
prison
inmate
filed
suit
respondents
state
prison
officials
alleging
certain
conditions
confinement
constituted
cruel
unusual
punishment
violation
eighth
fourteenth
amendments
affidavits
described
challenged
conditions
charged
authorities
notification
failed
take
remedial
action
district
granted
summary
judgment
respondents
appeals
affirmed
ground
inter
alia
affidavits
failed
establish
requisite
culpable
state
mind
part
respondents
held
prisoner
claiming
conditions
confinement
violate
eighth
amendment
must
show
culpable
state
mind
part
prison
officials
see
whitley
albers
rhodes
chapman
distinguished
intent
requirement
implicit
amendment
ban
cruel
unusual
punishment
wilson
suggested
distinction
prison
conditions
state
mind
requirement
apply
continuing
systemic
conditions
official
state
mind
irrelevant
rejected
pp
deliberate
indifference
standard
applied
estelle
gamble
claims
involving
medical
care
applies
generally
prisoner
challenges
conditions
confinement
merit
respondents
contention
standard
applied
cases
involving
personal
physical
injury
malice
standard
appropriate
cases
challenging
conditions
whitley
teaches
wantonness
conduct
depends
effect
prisoner
constraints
facing
official
pp
appeals
erred
failing
consider
wilson
claims
deliberate
indifference
standard
applying
instead
standard
behavior
marked
persistent
malicious
cruelty
possible
error
harmless
since
said
wilson
affidavits
established
best
negligence
conceivably
however
reached
different
disposition
correct
standard
case
remanded
reconsideration
basis
pp
scalia
delivered
opinion
rehnquist
kennedy
souter
joined
white
filed
opinion
concurring
judgment
marshall
blackmun
stevens
joined
post
elizabeth
alexander
argued
cause
petitioner
briefs
alvin
bronstein
gordon
beggs
john
powell
steven
shapiro
deputy
solicitor
general
bryson
argued
cause
amicus
curiae
support
petitioner
brief
solicitor
general
starr
assistant
attorney
general
dunne
deputy
solicitor
general
shapiro
deputy
assistant
attorney
general
clegg
michael
dreeben
david
flynn
thomas
chandler
rita
eppler
assistant
attorney
general
ohio
argued
cause
respondents
brief
anthony
celebrezze
attorney
general
nancy
miller
cherry
lynne
poteet
nancy
johnston
assistant
attorneys
general
john
boston
filed
brief
american
public
health
association
amicus
curiae
urging
reversal
brief
amici
curiae
filed
state
michigan
et
al
frank
kelley
attorney
general
michigan
gay
secor
hardy
solicitor
general
thomas
nelson
assistant
attorney
general
joined
attorneys
general
respective
jurisdictions
follows
douglas
bailey
alaska
ron
fields
arkansas
john
van
de
kamp
california
clarine
nardi
riddle
connecticut
charles
oberly
iii
delaware
warren
price
iii
hawaii
james
jones
idaho
neil
hartigan
illinois
robert
stephen
kansas
frederic
cowan
kentucky
william
webster
missouri
robert
del
tufo
new
jersey
dave
frohnmayer
oregon
ernest
preate
pennsylvania
travis
medlock
south
carolina
charles
brunson
tennessee
mary
sue
terry
virginia
hector
puerto
rico
justice
scalia
delivered
opinion
case
presents
questions
whether
prisoner
claiming
conditions
confinement
constitute
cruel
unusual
punishment
must
show
culpable
state
mind
part
prison
officials
state
mind
required
petitioner
pearly
wilson
felon
incarcerated
hocking
correctional
facility
hcf
nelsonville
ohio
alleging
number
conditions
confinement
constituted
cruel
unusual
punishment
violation
eighth
fourteenth
amendments
brought
action
respondents
richard
seiter
director
ohio
department
rehabilitation
correction
carl
humphreys
warden
hcf
complaint
alleged
overcrowding
excessive
noise
insufficient
locker
storage
space
inadequate
heating
cooling
improper
ventilation
unclean
inadequate
restrooms
unsanitary
dining
facilities
food
preparation
housing
mentally
physically
ill
inmates
petitioner
sought
declaratory
injunctive
relief
well
compensatory
punitive
damages
app
parties
filed
summary
judgment
supporting
affidavits
petitioner
affidavits
described
challenged
conditions
charged
authorities
notification
failed
take
remedial
action
respondents
affidavits
denied
alleged
conditions
existed
described
efforts
prison
officials
improve
others
district
granted
summary
judgment
respondents
appeals
sixth
circuit
affirmed
granted
certiorari
eighth
amendment
applies
due
process
clause
fourteenth
amendment
robinson
california
prohibits
infliction
cruel
unusual
punishments
convicted
crimes
estelle
gamble
first
acknowledged
provision
applied
deprivations
specifically
part
sentence
suffered
imprisonment
rejected
however
inmate
claim
case
prison
doctors
inflicted
cruel
unusual
punishment
inadequately
attending
medical
needs
failed
establish
possessed
sufficiently
culpable
state
mind
since
said
unnecessary
wanton
infliction
pain
implicates
eighth
amendment
quoting
gregg
georgia
joint
opinion
emphasis
added
prisoner
advancing
claim
must
minimum
allege
deliberate
indifference
serious
medical
needs
indifference
violate
eighth
amendment
ibid
emphasis
added
allegations
inadvertent
failure
provide
adequate
medical
care
negligent
diagnos
simply
fail
establish
requisite
culpable
state
mind
estelle
relied
large
measure
earlier
case
louisiana
ex
rel
francis
resweber
involved
prison
deprivation
effort
subject
prisoner
second
electrocution
first
attempt
failed
reason
malfunction
electric
chair
justice
reed
writing
plurality
emphasized
eighth
amendment
prohibited
wanton
infliction
pain
emphasis
added
first
attempt
thwarted
unforeseeable
accident
officials
lacked
culpable
state
mind
necessary
punishment
regarded
cruel
regardless
actual
suffering
inflicted
situation
unfortunate
victim
accident
though
suffered
identical
amount
mental
anguish
physical
pain
occurrence
example
fire
cell
block
justice
frankfurter
concurring
solely
basis
due
process
clause
fourteenth
amendment
emphasized
first
attempt
failed
innocent
misadventure
suggested
might
reach
different
conclusion
hypothetical
situation
assumes
series
abortive
attempts
electrocution
even
single
cruelly
willful
attempt
estelle
next
confronted
eighth
amendment
challenge
prison
deprivation
rhodes
chapman
case
inmates
southern
ohio
correctional
facility
contended
lodging
two
inmates
single
cell
double
celling
constituted
cruel
unusual
punishment
rejected
contention
concluding
amounts
theory
double
celling
inflicts
pain
constitutes
unnecessary
wanton
infliction
pain
violates
eighth
amendment
constitution
said
mandate
comfortable
prisons
deprivations
denying
minimal
civilized
measure
life
necessities
sufficiently
grave
form
basis
eighth
amendment
violation
holding
rhodes
turned
objective
component
eighth
amendment
prison
claim
deprivation
sufficiently
serious
consider
subjective
component
officials
act
sufficiently
culpable
state
mind
rhodes
eliminated
subjective
component
made
clear
next
relevant
case
whitley
albers
inmate
shot
guard
attempt
quell
prison
disturbance
contended
subjected
cruel
unusual
punishment
stated
incarceration
unnecessary
wanton
infliction
pain
constitutes
cruel
unusual
punishment
forbidden
eighth
amendment
cruel
unusual
punishment
conduct
purport
punishment
must
involve
ordinary
lack
due
care
prisoner
interests
safety
obduracy
wantonness
inadvertence
error
good
faith
characterize
conduct
prohibited
cruel
unusual
punishments
clause
whether
conduct
occurs
connection
establishing
conditions
confinement
supplying
medical
needs
restoring
official
control
tumultuous
cellblock
emphasis
added
citations
omitted
internal
quotations
omitted
infliction
punishment
deliberate
act
intended
chastise
deter
word
means
today
meant
eighteenth
century
guard
accidentally
stepped
prisoner
toe
broke
punishment
anything
remotely
like
accepted
meaning
word
whether
consult
usage
duckworth
franzen
cert
denied
suggests
state
mind
inquiry
might
allow
officials
interpose
defense
despite
good
faith
efforts
obtain
funding
fiscal
constraints
beyond
control
prevent
elimination
inhumane
conditions
even
hard
understand
control
meaning
cruel
unusual
punishments
eighth
amendment
intent
requirement
either
implicit
word
punishment
alternately
required
ignored
policy
considerations
might
dictate
rate
validity
cost
defense
negating
requisite
intent
issue
case
since
respondents
never
advanced
might
note
indication
officials
sought
use
defense
avoid
holding
estelle
gamble
ii
determined
eighth
amendment
claims
based
official
conduct
purport
penalty
formally
imposed
crime
require
inquiry
state
mind
remains
us
consider
state
mind
applies
cases
challenging
prison
conditions
described
cases
say
offending
conduct
must
wanton
whitley
makes
clear
however
context
wantonness
fixed
meaning
must
determined
due
regard
differences
kind
conduct
eighth
amendment
objection
lodged
whitley
officials
act
response
prison
disturbance
actions
necessarily
taken
haste
pressure
balanced
competing
institutional
concerns
safety
prison
staff
inmates
ibid
emergency
situation
found
wantonness
consisted
acting
maliciously
sadistically
purpose
causing
harm
quoting
johnson
see
also
dudley
stubbs
dissenting
denial
certiorari
contrast
state
responsibility
attend
medical
needs
prisoners
ordinarily
clash
equally
important
governmental
responsibilities
whitley
supra
context
estelle
held
deliberate
indifference
constitute
wantonness
parties
agree
lower
courts
consistently
held
see
lafaut
smith
high
state
mind
prescribed
whitley
apply
prison
conditions
cases
petitioner
argues
extent
officials
state
mind
relevant
justification
standard
demanding
estelle
deliberate
indifference
respondents
counter
deliberate
indifference
appropriate
cases
involving
personal
injury
physical
nature
malice
standard
applied
cases
involve
detriment
bodily
integrity
pain
injury
loss
life
brief
respondents
agree
respondents
suggestion
wantonness
conduct
depends
upon
effect
upon
prisoner
whitley
teaches
assuming
conduct
harmful
enough
satisfy
objective
component
eighth
amendment
claim
see
rhodes
chapman
whether
characterized
wanton
depends
upon
constraints
facing
official
standpoint
see
significant
distinction
claims
alleging
inadequate
medical
care
alleging
inadequate
conditions
confinement
indeed
medical
care
prisoner
receives
much
condition
confinement
food
fed
clothes
issued
temperature
subjected
cell
protection
afforded
inmates
indication
general
matter
actions
prison
officials
respect
nonmedical
conditions
taken
materially
different
constraints
actions
respect
medical
conditions
thus
retired
justice
powell
concluded
whether
one
characterizes
treatment
received
prisoner
inhumane
conditions
confinement
failure
attend
medical
needs
combination
appropriate
apply
deliberate
indifference
standard
articulated
estelle
lafaut
see
also
lopez
robinson
givens
jones
cert
denied
morgan
district
columbia
app
iii
consider
whether
light
foregoing
analysis
sixth
circuit
erred
affirming
district
grant
summary
judgment
respondents
favor
preliminary
matter
must
address
petitioner
contention
appeals
erred
dismissing
reached
issue
number
claims
inadequate
cooling
housing
mentally
ill
inmates
overcrowding
ground
even
proved
involve
serious
deprivation
required
rhodes
dismiss
challenged
condition
petitioner
contends
long
conditions
remain
dispute
condition
must
considered
part
overall
conditions
challenged
brief
petitioner
petitioner
bases
contention
upon
observation
rhodes
conditions
confinement
alone
combination
may
deprive
prisoners
minimal
civilized
measure
life
necessities
courts
besides
appeals
understood
see
wellman
faulkner
cert
denied
hoptowit
ray
wright
rushen
statement
rhodes
meant
establish
broad
proposition
petitioner
asserts
conditions
confinement
may
establish
eighth
amendment
violation
combination
alone
mutually
enforcing
effect
produces
deprivation
single
identifiable
human
need
food
warmth
exercise
example
low
cell
temperature
night
combined
failure
issue
blankets
compare
spain
procunier
outdoor
exercise
required
prisoners
otherwise
confined
small
cells
almost
hours
per
day
clay
miller
outdoor
exercise
required
prisoners
otherwise
access
day
room
hours
per
day
say
prison
conditions
may
interact
fashion
far
cry
saying
prison
conditions
seamless
web
eighth
amendment
purposes
nothing
amorphous
overall
conditions
rise
level
cruel
unusual
punishment
specific
deprivation
single
human
need
exists
express
opinion
relative
gravity
various
claims
sixth
circuit
found
pass
fail
threshold
test
serious
deprivation
reject
contention
made
claim
found
fail
test
isolation
disposing
three
claims
basis
rhodes
appeals
proceeded
uphold
district
dismissal
petitioner
remaining
claims
ground
affidavits
failed
establish
requisite
culpable
state
mind
critical
portion
opinion
reads
follows
whitley
standard
obduracy
wantonness
requires
behavior
marked
persistent
malicious
cruelty
record
us
simply
fails
assert
facts
suggesting
behavior
best
appellants
claim
evidences
negligence
appellees
parts
implementing
standards
maintaining
conditions
negligence
clearly
inadequate
support
eighth
amendment
claim
ordered
footnotes
course
concurrence
say
deprivation
must
imposed
upon
prisoners
rise
level
condition
confinement
punishment
suffice
directed
individual
prisoners
one
wonders
whether
depriving
individual
prisoners
murderers
suffice
individual
prisoners
cellblock
concurrence
distinction
seems
us
unsupportable
principle
unworkable
practice
concurrence
going
beyond
petitioner
argued
takes
position
conditions
exist
prison
even
though
prison
officials
neither
know
reason
know
constitute
punishment
reasons
described
basis
position
principle
contradicted
cases
concurrence
purports
find
support
two
cases
hutto
finney
rhodes
chapman
hutto
concurrence
description
makes
clear
question
whether
conditions
remedied
district
order
constituted
cruel
unusual
punishment
issue
indeed
apart
attorney
fees
element
order
issue
respect
pertained
punitive
isolation
post
even
one
think
passed
upon
cruel
unusual
punishment
point
uninvited
sub
silentio
punitive
isolation
inflicted
punitive
intent
rhodes
concurrence
describes
addressing
first
time
disputed
contention
conditions
confinement
particular
prison
constituted
cruel
unusual
punishment
post
emphasis
original
mention
element
disputed
well
element
decided
see
supra
whether
conditions
sufficiently
serious
deprivation
violate
constitutional
standard
borne
mind
evident
lengthy
quotation
case
set
forth
concurrence
post
provides
support
even
way
dictum
concurrence
position
justice
white
justice
marshall
justice
blackmun
justice
stevens
join
concurring
judgment
majority
holds
prisoners
challenging
conditions
confinement
eighth
amendment
must
show
deliberate
indifference
responsible
officials
requirement
inconsistent
prior
decisions
concur
judgment
well
established
majority
dispute
pain
suffering
part
punishment
imposed
convicted
criminals
subject
eighth
amendment
scrutiny
without
regard
intent
requirement
linchpin
majority
analysis
therefore
assertion
pain
inflicted
formally
meted
punishment
statute
sentencing
judge
mental
element
must
attributed
inflicting
officer
qualify
ante
emphasis
added
reasoning
disregards
prior
decisions
involved
challenges
conditions
confinement
made
clear
conditions
part
punishment
even
though
specifically
meted
statute
judge
first
considered
relationship
eighth
amendment
conditions
confinement
hutto
finney
district
entered
series
remedial
orders
determining
conditions
arkansas
prison
system
violated
eighth
amendment
prison
officials
conceding
conditions
cruel
unusual
challenged
two
aspects
district
relief
order
limiting
punitive
isolation
days
award
attorney
fees
upholding
district
limitation
punitive
isolation
first
made
clear
conditions
confinement
part
punishment
subject
eighth
amendment
scrutiny
eighth
amendment
ban
inflicting
cruel
unusual
punishments
made
applicable
fourteenth
amendment
proscribe
physically
barbarous
punishments
estelle
gamble
prohibits
penalties
grossly
disproportionate
offense
weems
well
transgress
today
broad
idealistic
concepts
dignity
civilized
standards
humanity
decency
estelle
gamble
supra
quoting
jackson
bishop
confinement
prison
isolation
cell
form
punishment
subject
scrutiny
eighth
amendment
standards
emphasis
added
rhodes
chapman
addressed
first
time
disputed
contention
conditions
confinement
particular
prison
constituted
cruel
unusual
punishment
see
prisoners
challenged
double
celling
inmates
ohio
prison
addressing
claim
began
reiterating
various
bases
eighth
amendment
challenge
today
eighth
amendment
prohibits
punishments
although
physically
barbarous
involve
unnecessary
wanton
infliction
pain
gregg
georgia
grossly
disproportionate
severity
crime
coker
georgia
plurality
opinion
weems
among
unnecessary
wanton
inflictions
pain
totally
without
penological
justification
gregg
georgia
supra
estelle
gamble
static
test
exist
courts
determine
whether
conditions
confinement
cruel
unusual
eighth
amendment
must
draw
meaning
evolving
standards
decency
mark
progress
maturing
society
trop
dulles
plurality
opinion
omitted
principles
apply
conditions
confinement
compose
punishment
issue
conditions
must
involve
wanton
unnecessary
infliction
pain
may
grossly
disproportionate
severity
crime
warranting
imprisonment
estelle
gamble
supra
held
denial
medical
care
cruel
unusual
worst
case
result
physical
torture
even
less
serious
cases
result
pain
without
penological
purpose
hutto
finney
supra
conditions
confinement
two
arkansas
prisons
constituted
cruel
unusual
punishment
resulted
unquestioned
serious
deprivations
basic
human
needs
conditions
gamble
hutto
alone
combination
may
deprive
inmates
minimal
civilized
measure
life
necessities
conditions
cruel
unusual
contemporary
standard
decency
recognized
gamble
supra
emphasis
added
majority
relies
upon
decisions
louisiana
ex
rel
francis
resweber
estelle
gamble
whitley
albers
none
cases
involved
challenge
conditions
confinement
instead
involved
challenges
specific
acts
omissions
directed
individual
prisoners
gamble
example
challenge
general
lack
access
medical
care
prison
allegedly
inadequate
delivery
treatment
plaintiff
similarly
whitley
challenge
action
prison
guard
shooting
plaintiff
riot
condition
prison
distinction
crucial
unlike
conduct
purport
punishment
involved
gamble
whitley
made
intent
element
cause
action
alleging
unconstitutional
conditions
confinement
gillespie
crawford
per
curiam
reinstated
part
en
banc
moreover
whitley
expressly
supports
objective
standard
challenges
conditions
confinement
discussing
eighth
amendment
stated
express
intent
inflict
unnecessary
pain
required
estelle
gamble
deliberate
indifference
prisoner
serious
medical
needs
cruel
unusual
punishment
harsh
conditions
confinement
may
constitute
cruel
unusual
punishment
unless
conditions
part
penalty
criminal
offenders
pay
offenses
society
rhodes
chapman
emphasis
added
majority
intent
requirement
departure
precedent
likely
prove
impossible
apply
many
cases
inhumane
prison
conditions
often
result
cumulative
actions
inactions
numerous
officials
inside
outside
prison
sometimes
long
period
time
circumstances
far
clear
whose
intent
examined
majority
offers
real
guidance
issue
truth
intent
simply
meaningful
considering
challenge
institution
prison
system
majority
approach
also
unwise
leaves
open
possibility
example
prison
officials
able
defeat
action
challenging
inhumane
prison
conditions
simply
showing
conditions
caused
insufficient
funding
state
legislature
rather
deliberate
indifference
part
prison
officials
see
ante
view
chosen
use
imprisonment
form
punishment
state
must
ensure
conditions
prisons
comport
contemporary
standard
decency
required
eighth
amendment
see
deshaney
winnebago
cty
dept
social
services
argues
eriously
inhumane
pervasive
conditions
insulated
constitutional
challenge
officials
managing
institution
exhibited
conscientious
concern
ameliorating
problems
made
efforts
albeit
unsuccessful
end
brief
amicus
curiae
ultimate
result
today
decision
fear
serious
deprivations
basic
human
needs
rhodes
supra
go
unredressed
due
unnecessary
meaningless
search
deliberate
indifference
telling
lower
courts
often
examined
objective
conditions
subjective
intent
government
officials
considering
eighth
amendment
challenges
conditions
confinement
see
tillery
owens
foulds
corley
french
owens
cert
denied
hoptowit
spellman
among
lower
courts
well
established
inadequate
funding
excuse
perpetuation
unconstitutional
conditions
confinement
smith
sullivan
see
also
wellman
faulkner
cert
denied
ramos
lamm
cert
denied
battle
anderson
gates
collier