Opinion ID: 160813
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Living Conditions

Text: 9 Finally, Mr. McBride argues that defendants Major Dear, Sgt. Salilis, and Sgt. Cambridge 2 violated his constitutional rights by forcing him to live in squalor more specifically, a feces-covered cell for three days. 3 Under the Eighth Amendment, jail officials must 10 provide humane conditions of confinement by ensuring inmates receive the basic necessities of adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical care and by taking reasonable measures to guarantee the inmates' safety. To hold a jailer personally liable for violating an inmate's right to humane conditions of confinement, a plaintiff must satisfy two requirements, consisting of an objective and subjective component. 11 The objective component requires that the alleged deprivation be sufficiently serious. . .. 12 The subjective component requires the jail official to have a sufficiently culpable state of mind. In the context of prison-conditions claims, the required state of mind is one of deliberate indifference to inmate health and safety. 13 Craig v. Eberly, 164 F.3d 490, 495 (10th Cir. 1998) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). 14 The district court held that Mr. McBride failed to state a claim because he admitted in his amended complaint that cleaning supplies (namely, a broom, a mop, a bucket, water, and a half-gallon of disinfectant) were provided to the inmates every afternoon. Had Mr. McBride so admitted, then the district court's conclusion would be proper but, in his objections to the report and recommendation, Mr. McBride clarified the situation: 15 I state in my amended complaint that 2 inmates are picked to clean the pod not the cells[.] . . . [T]he pod officer comes into the pod then he counts the inmates, then he goes and gets the mop, broom, and bucket and comes make all but 2 inmates stay in [their] cell, then he allows the 2 inmates to clean the pod area . . . . Then after the 2 inmates get does the pod [officer] takes the mop bucket and broom and stuff back out of the pod and then the other inmates are let out of [their] cage/cell. 16 Rec., doc. 45, at 7 (emphasis added); see also Howard v. Adkison, 887 F.2d 134, 140 (8th Cir. 1989) (The simple fact that the cleaning supplies were present in [the plaintiff's] unit does nothing to show that he was provided with them.). 17 Because of Mr. McBride's clarification, we must undertake the inquiry anew i.e., did Mr. McBride fail to state a claim given not only the allegations in his pleadings and but also his objections to the report and recommendation? In arriving at our answer, we note first that conditions, such as a filthy cell, may be tolerable for a few days. Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 687 (1978). However, the length of time a prisoner must endure an unsanitary cell is [simply] one factor in the constitutional calculus; equally important is the degree of filth endured. Whitnack v. Douglas County, 16 F.3d 954, 958 (8th Cir. 1994). In other words, the length of time required before a constitutional violation is made out decreases as the level of filthiness endured increases. Id.; see also Fruit v. Norris, 905 F.2d 1147, 1151 (8th Cir. 1990) (holding that requiring inmates to work for even ten minutes in a well where they faced a shower of human excrement without protective clothing and equipment would be inconsistent with any standard of decency) (internal quotation marks omitted). 18 Not surprisingly, human waste has been considered particularly offensive so that courts have been especially cautious about condoning conditions that include an inmate's proximity to [it]. Id.; see also LaReau v. MacDougall, 473 F.2d 974, 978 (2d Cir. 1972) (holding that [c]ausing a man to live, eat[,] and perhaps sleep in close confines with his own human waste is too debasing and degrading to be permitted). Given the totality of the circumstances i.e., the three-day period and the proximity of human waste we hold that Mr. McBride alleged sufficient facts to demonstrate a sufficiently serious condition of confinement. Cf. Sperow v. Melvin, No. 96-4219, 1999 WL 450786, at -2 (7th Cir. June 24, 1999) (unpublished opinion) (holding that plaintiff's claim that he was placed in an unsanitary cell i.e., human feces and urine on the walls and floor, pieces of a mattress on the floor caked with feces and urine, and a dozen plastic food trays with decayed food and refused cleaning supplies for three days was sufficient to overcome Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim). Because Mr. McBride also alleged sufficient facts to establish deliberate indifference on the part of the defendants, we conclude that the district court erred in dismissing on the basis of failure to state a claim. See Craig, 164 F.3d at 495 (noting that, to prove an Eighth Amendment violation, the plaintiff must prove a sufficiently serious deprivation and deliberate indifference).