Opinion ID: 470377
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause.

Text: 16 Pursuant to the defendants' motion for summary judgment, the district court dismissed the Strandbergs' claim based on the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment. The court found the complaint did not allege the decedent or any class of people to which the decedent belonged was being treated in a discriminatory manner by the defendants. 17 The Strandbergs argue their complaint stated a cause of action under the equal protection clause because they alleged the decedent had the status of a pretrial detainee. [T]he demands of equal protection of the laws and of due process ... prevent unjustifiable confinement of detainees under worse conditions than convicted prisoners. Rhem v. Malcolm, 507 F.2d 333, 336 (2d Cir.1974), quoted in Lock v. Jenkins, 641 F.2d 488, 479 (7th Cir.1981). Nowhere in their complaint do the Strandbergs allege any facts from which it could be inferred that the conditions in which prisoners are kept, either in the same institution or in another, are better than those in which pretrial detainees are kept. The court therefore properly dismissed their equal protection claim. 18