United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 02-2562

___________

Frank R. Owens, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Southern

* District of Iowa.

Scott County Jail; Richard D. Huff, *

Major, * [PUBLISHED]

*

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: January 7, 2003

 Filed: May 13, 2003

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and MELLOY, Circuit

Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Iowa inmate Frank Owens appeals the district court’s grant of summary

judgment for defendants Scott County Jail (SCJ) and Major Richard D. Huff, chief

deputy at SCJ, in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging unconstitutional conditions

of confinement. We affirm as to SCJ and reverse and remand as to Huff. 

We review the grant of summary judgment de novo, affirming only when the

record does not show a genuine issue of material fact. See Smith v. Copeland, 87
-2-

F.3d 265, 267 (8th Cir. 1996). The evidence presented by the parties showed the

following. 

From July 24 to September 2, 1999, while a pretrial detainee at SCJ, Owens

was housed in a one-man cell with another inmate. Because of the crowded

condition, Owens had to sleep on a mattress on the floor approximately a foot and a

half away from the toilet. When his cellmate would use the toilet at night, urine

would splash onto Owens and his blankets. SCJ cleaned his blankets less than once

a month. Owens alleged that this arrangement increased his risk of contracting

diseases. 

We affirm the grant of summary judgment as to SCJ, because county jails are

not legal entities amenable to suit. See De La Garza v. Kandiyohi County Jail, 18

Fed. App. 436, 437 (8th Cir. 2001) (unpublished per curiam) (county jails are not

amenable to suit); Dicken v. Ashcroft, 972 F.2d 231, 233 (8th Cir. 1992) (district

court can be affirmed on any basis supported by record). 

As a pretrial detainee, Owens’s claims against Huff are analyzed under the

Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause rather than the Eighth Amendment.

See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 n.16 (1979). Huff violated Owens’s due

process rights if SCJ’s conditions of confinement constituted punishment. Cf. id. at

536-39 (condition of pretrial detention that is reasonably related to legitimate

government interests does not amount to punishment). Under the Fourteenth

Amendment, pretrial detainees are entitled to “at least as great” protection as that

afforded convicted prisoners under the Eighth Amendment. See City of Revere v.

Mass. Gen. Hosp., 463 U.S. 239, 244 (1983). Punishment that “deprive[s] inmates

of the minimal civilized measures of life’s necessities” is unconstitutional. See

Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981). Hence, “inmates are entitled to

reasonably adequate sanitation, personal hygiene, and laundry privileges, particularly
-3-

over a lengthy course of time.” See Howard v. Adkison, 887 F.2d 134, 137 (8th Cir.

1989). 

Although this court has not yet established a clear standard for determining

when pretrial detention is unconstitutionally punitive, we have applied the Eighth

Amendment “deliberate indifference” standard. See Whitnack v. Douglas County,

16 F.3d 954, 957 (8th Cir. 1994); see also Smith, 87 F.3d at 268 n.4 (burden of

showing constitutional violations is lighter for pretrial detainee than prisoners).

While reviewing the totality of circumstances of Owens’s confinement, see Smith, 87

F.3d at 268, we focus on the length of his exposure to unsanitary conditions and how

unsanitary the conditions were, see Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 686-87 (1978)

(filthy, overcrowded cell might “be tolerable for a few days and intolerably cruel for

weeks or months”); Whitnack, 16 F.3d at 958 (length of time required for conditions

to be unconstitutional decreases as level of filthiness increases).

 

Owens slept next to a toilet for roughly five weeks. The district court

emphasized that Owens was “only in this situation for a limited time.” Yet, five

weeks is longer than other cases where we ruled that exposure to unsanitary

conditions was not unconstitutional because of the brevity of exposure. See, e.g.,

Smith, 87 F.3d at 265 (no constitutional violations where pretrial detainee was

confined in cell with overflowed toilet for four days); White v. Nix, 7 F.3d 120, 121

(8th Cir. 1993) (no constitutional violation where pretrial detainee was confined in

unsanitary cell for eleven days); Goldman v. Forbus, 17 Fed. App. 487, 488 (8th Cir.

2001) (unpublished per curiam) (no constitutional violation where pretrial detainee

slept six nights on floor next to toilet). Indeed, we have noted the need to be

“especially cautious about condoning conditions that include an inmate’s proximity

to human waste.” See Fruit v. Norris, 905 F.2d 1147, 1151 (8th Cir. 1990). Hence,

we reverse the district court’s ruling that Huff was entitled to judgment as a matter

of law and remand for further proceedings. 
-4-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.