Opinion ID: 681325
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Constitution and Conditions of Confinement

Text: 14 We begin with the proposition that, while the Constitution does not require prisons to be comfortable, it also does not permit them to be inhumane, and it is now settled that 'the ... conditions under which [a prisoner] is confined are subject to scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment.'  Farmer v. Brennan, --- U.S. ----, ----, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 1976, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (quoting Helling v. McKinney, --- U.S. ----, ----, 113 S.Ct. 2475, 2480, 125 L.Ed.2d 22 (1993)). A valid Eighth Amendment claim of this kind has two components: (1) an objective component which requires that conditions be sufficiently serious, Farmer, --- U.S. at ----, 114 S.Ct. at 1977; Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298, 111 S.Ct. 2321, 2324, 115 L.Ed.2d 271 (1991); and (2) a subjective component which requires that prison officials exhibit deliberate indifference to prisoner health or safety. Farmer, --- U.S. at ----, 114 S.Ct. at 1977; Wilson, 501 U.S. at 301-05, 111 S.Ct. at 2326-27; see also Helling, --- U.S. at ----, 113 S.Ct. at 2480; Hudson v. McMillian, --- U.S. at ----, ----, 112 S.Ct. 995, 999, 117 L.Ed.2d 156 (1992); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285, 292, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976). 15 No static 'test' can exist by which courts determine whether conditions of confinement are cruel and unusual, for the Eighth Amendment 'must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.'  Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 346, 101 S.Ct. 2392, 2399, 69 L.Ed.2d 59 (1981) (quoting Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 101, 78 S.Ct. 590, 598, 2 L.Ed.2d 630 (1958) (plurality opinion)). The objective component of an Eighth Amendment claim is therefore contextual and responsive to 'contemporary standards of decency.'  Hudson, --- U.S. at ----, 112 S.Ct. at 1000 (quoting Estelle, 429 U.S. at 103, 97 S.Ct. at 290). Only a deprivation which denies the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities, Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 347, 101 S.Ct. at 2399, is grave enough to violate the Eighth Amendment. Wilson, 501 U.S. at 298-99, 111 S.Ct. at 2324. Nothing so amorphous as 'overall conditions' can rise to the level of cruel and unusual punishment when no specific deprivation of a single human need exists. Id. at 305, 111 S.Ct. at 2327. 16 While the conditions under which a prisoner is held are subject to scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment, the conditions under which a pretrial detainee is confined are scrutinized under the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 & n. 16, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 1872 & n. 16, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979) (utilizing Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause); Hamm v. DeKalb County, 774 F.2d 1567, 1572 (11th Cir.1985) (utilizing Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1096, 106 S.Ct. 1492, 89 L.Ed.2d 894 (1986). In Hamm, this Court held that in regard to providing pretrial detainees with such basic necessities as food, living space, and medical care the minimum standard allowed by the due process clause is the same as that allowed by the eighth amendment for convicted persons. 774 F.2d at 1574. 17 Thus, to determine the constitutionality of the conditions at the Hillsborough and Gilchrist County jails, one must look to contemporary standards of decency, Estelle, 429 U.S. at 103, 97 S.Ct. at 290, to ascertain whether those conditions deprived Jordan of the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities. Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 347, 101 S.Ct. at 2399. More specifically, in order to violate due process, the conditions of which Jordan complains must, at a minimum, have deprived him of a single human need. Wilson, 501 U.S. at 305, 111 S.Ct. at 2327. 18 Jordan contends that he was held in overcrowded, unsanitary local jails where the food was contaminated and fire hazards existed. These contentions implicate the deprivation of a single human need, and if sufficiently severe, could constitute a deprivation of the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities. Id. at 304-05, 111 S.Ct. at 2327. Thus we conclude that, at least by Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) standards, Jordan has stated a claim under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.