Opinion ID: 148261
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Jail's Smoking Policy

Text: First, although Davis concedes the jail had an anti-smoking policy in effect, he alleges the policy was disregarded by the officers, who knew inmates were using matches and lighters to smoke cigarettes and other items. He also asserts Tom Lamb, a former jailer with the Sheriff's Department, supplied cigarettes to inmates. Moreover, he contends the district court's finding smoking indoors does not create an unreasonable risk of fire was unsupported by any evidence. We reject Davis's arguments regarding the jail's smoking policy. First, Davis concedes the jail had an anti-smoking policy in effect at all relevant times. Such a policy demonstrates the prison officials' actions in dealing with fire hazards. Standish v. Bommel, 82 F.3d 190, 192 (8th Cir.1996) (per curiam) (holding there was no deliberate indifference where prison officials had taken action to deal with fire hazards, for example, by prohibiting smoking in [the housing unit].). Davis's assertions regarding Lamb are of little relevance because Lamb retired nine months before the fire occurred and was not involved in the events of this case. Similarly, Davis's allegations regarding the other officers' disregard for the smoking policy is contradicted by the undisputed facts in the record demonstrating the officers' sweeps for contraband as recently as five days before the fire. During the September 1, 2007, search, the officers took preventative measures to inhibit the flow of lighters, matches, cigarettes, and other items into the jail, such as confiscating all current contraband and closing the window where the inmates were receiving the contraband. In light of these recent measures taken by the officers, they cannot be said to have failed to reasonably respond to a substantial risk to Davis's safety. See Young v. Selk, 508 F.3d 868, 873 (8th Cir.2007) (An official is deliberately indifferent if he or she actually knows of the substantial risk and fails to respond reasonably to it.) (citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 844-45, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994)). Further, while the parties dispute the cause of the fire, [3] we conclude this issue is unnecessary to resolve in light of the officers' preventative measures discussed above. In prison conditions claims, which include threats to an inmate's health and safety, the subjective inquiry is whether the prison officials were deliberately indifferent to a serious risk of harm to the inmate. Irving v. Dormire, 519 F.3d 441, 446 (8th Cir.2008). Even if the fire was caused by other inmates' smoking, as Davis presumably infers, the anti-smoking policy and the officers' actions in curbing the use of contraband demonstrate no deliberate indifference to a substantial risk to Davis's safety. Similarly, we need not decide whether smoking indoors creates an unreasonable risk of fire because, even if it did, the officers' contraband sweeps and anti-smoking policy would have been a reasonable response to such a risk. Accordingly, the district court was correct in rejecting Davis's argument regarding the jail's smoking policy.