Opinion ID: 707800
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: conditions of confinement in the seg unit

Text: 59 Turning to the conditions of confinement in the segregation unit, the court finds as a matter of law that the plaintiff's deprivations did not rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation. Although the plaintiff may have experienced some unpleasantness staying in the dirty segregation unit for two relatively brief stints, he alleges no physical harm as a result of his confinement. In fact, the defendant Stiff reports in his affidavit that the segregation unit was monitored daily to ensure a safe, secure and sanitary environment; he further states that the plaintiff never complained of the conditions there. 60 The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has repeatedly held that temporary conditions such as those the plaintiff complains of here do not amount to subjection to cruel and unusual punishment. See, for example, Johnson v. Pelker, 891 F.2d 136, 138-39 (7th Cir.1989); Harris v. Fleming, 839 F.2d 1232, 1235-36 (7th Cir.1988) (confinement in a filthy, roach-infested cell without articles of hygiene for five to ten days did not violate the Eighth Amendment); see also Bono v. Saxbe, 620 F.2d 609, 613 (7th Cir.1980) (generally harsher conditions in segregation unit do not violate the Eighth Amendment). 61 The alleged lack of heat did not amount to a hardship of constitutional magnitude. While neither party has submitted prison records regarding temperatures in the facility between May 21, 1992, and June 1, 1992, the court takes judicial notice from the public library's Local Climatological Data (monthly summary of the National Service Office) that temperatures in this area and around those dates ranged from 57 to 84 degrees Fahrenheit. Temperatures inside the prison, which must have been even warmer, could not have been unbearably cold. 62 Furthermore, the denial of telephone privileges for ten days is not a matter of constitutional dimension. Prisons are not required to provide and prisoners cannot expect to receive the services of a good hotel. Harris, 839 F.2d at 1235. Even accepting the plaintiff's allegations as true, his placement in segregation does not state a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983.