Opinion ID: 671759
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Inadequate Housing

Text: 5 Marasco contends that the defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights by subjecting him to inadequate housing which resulted in his injury. Specifically, Marasco contends that the defendants should have installed grab bars and non-skid strips in the prison showers. 6 An Eighth Amendment claim based on conditions of confinement contains both an objective and a subjective component. See Wilson v. Seiter, 111 S.Ct. 2321, 2323-26. (1991). To establish the subjective component of the claim, the prisoner must demonstrate that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to the allegedly unconstitutional conditions. Id. at 2326-27. The objective component of the claim is contextual and responsive to contemporary standards of decency. Hudson v. McMillian, 112 S.Ct. 995, 999 (1992) (quotation omitted). [E]xtreme deprivations are required to make out a conditions-of-confinement claim. Id. Accordingly, only those deprivations denying the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities are sufficiently grave to form the basis of an Eighth Amendment violation. Id. (quotations omitted). 7 Here, Marasco failed to provide any evidence to satisfy either the objective or the subjective component of his claim. First, he failed to provide any evidence that defendants are required to provide grab bars or non-skid strips in the prison showers. See id. Second, Marasco failed to set forth specific facts showing that defendants were deliberately indifferent regarding the absence of grab bars and non-skid strips in the showers. See id. In fact, the evidence demonstrates that defendants began experimental use of grab bars and non-skid strips in response to Marasco's request. Accordingly, the district court correctly granted summary judgment for defendants on this claim. See Taylor, 880 F.2d at 1044. 8