Document: 509 U.S. 25 113 S.Ct. 2475 125 L.Ed.2d 22 Donald L. HELLING, et al., Petitioners,v.William McKINNEY. No. 91-1958. Argued Jan. 13, 1993. Decided June 18, Syllabus * Respondent McKinney, a Nevada state prisoner, filed suit against petitioner prison officials, claiming that his involuntary exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) from cellmate's and other inmates' cigarettes posed an unreasonable risk health, thus subjecting him cruel unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. A federal magistrate granted petitioners' motion for directed verdict, but Court Appeals reversed part, holding McKinney should have been permitted prove ETS was sufficient constitute danger future health. It reaffirmed its decision after this remanded further consideration light Wilson v. Seiter, 501 ----, 111 2321, 115 271, which held Amendment claims arising confinement conditions not formally imposed as sentence crime require proof subjective component, where claim alleges inhumane or failure attend prisoner's medical needs, standard mind is "deliberate indifference" Estelle Gamble, 429 97, 97 285, 50 251. The Seiter's component did vitiate court's determination it would be house prisoner environment exposing levels pose harming health—the objective McKinney's claim. Held: 1. improper decide question whether could based on possible effects ETS. From examination record, court apparently view claimed entitlement smoke-free subsumed endanger one's future, just current, Pp. ____. 2. By alleging petitioners have, with deliberate indifference, exposed has stated relief granted. An injunction cannot denied inmates who plainly unsafe, life-threatening condition ground nothing yet happened them. See Hutto Finney, 437 678, 682. Thus, central thesis only indifference current serious health problems actionable rejected. Since at juncture rule possibly exposure, also premature base reversal Federal Government's argument harm speculative, no sufficiently grave implicate need, contrary standards decency. On remand, District must give opportunity allegations, will he establish both elements necessary violation. With respect factor, may difficulty showing being unreasonably high levels, since moved new longer cellmate smokes, policy restricts smoking certain areas makes reasonable efforts nonsmokers' wishes regard double bunking. He show complains one today's society chooses tolerate. determined authorities' attitudes conduct, which, evidenced by policy, changed considerably Appeals' judgment. inquiry into factor appropriate vehicle consider arguments regarding realities administration. 959 F.2d 853 (CA 9 1992), affirmed remanded. WHITE, J., delivered opinion Court, REHNQUIST, C.J., BLACKMUN, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, KENNEDY, SOUTER, JJ., joined. THOMAS, dissenting opinion, SCALIA, Frankie Sue Del Papa, Carson City, NV, petitioners. John J. Roberts, Jr., amicus curiae special leave Court. Cornish F. Hitchcock, Washington, DC, respondent. Justice WHITE 1 This case requires us inmate can form basis under 2 serving imprisonment system. At time arose, respondent State Prison Nevada. pro se civil rights complaint United States Rev.Stat. § 1979, 42 U.S.C. 1983, naming defendants director prison, warden, associate unit counselor, manager store. complaint, dated December 1986, alleged assigned cell another smoked five packs day. App. 6. were sold without properly informing hazards nonsmoking encounter sharing room smoked, Id., 7-8, burned continuously, releasing some type chemical, 9. complained allegedly caused cigarette smoke. sought injunctive damages for, inter alia, jeopardizing 14. 3 parties consented jury trial before magistrate. viewed respondent's presenting two issues law: (1) had constitutional right housed environment, (2) deliberately indifferent needs. Pet. Cert. D2-D3. magistrate, citing applicable authority, concluded free smoke: while "society moving toward propriety non-smoking environment," completely agree "on resolution these issues." D3, D6. found nonetheless needs if underlying facts, failed present evidence either traceable D6-D10. therefore verdict judgment defendants. D10. 4 magistrate's grant issue immediate symptoms, Anderson, 924 1500, 1512 (CA9 1991). immune liability there clearly established law imposing prisoners ETS.* Although agreed valid cause action involuntarily 1509. In support judgment, noticed scientific supporting 1505-1507. society's attitude evolved point dangerous violated 1508. erred directing permitting 5 Petitioners review meantime, decided 271 (1991), that, applies are crime, such 251 (1976). We certiorari case, vacated below, Seiter. 502 (1991). 6 noted Seiter added additional element make out claim, 853, 854 (1992). reinstated previous proceedings consistent prior Ibid. 7 again contending below conflict en banc Tenth Circuit Clemmons Bohannon, 956 1523 certiorari, 505 112 3024, 120 896 affirm. II 8 petition we challenged asserted, petition, all. 25-29. rested smoke, effects; framed likewise devoid issue; presented, briefed argued appeal sua sponte deciding it. Brief 46-49. "[b]oth during trial, litigate degree actual potential health," F.2d, 1503; excluded relating ETS; addressed matter compelled does violate error refuse appoint expert witness testify about exposure. While record ambiguous might well hesitate dispose misread passed over same when first us, Cert., O.T.1991, 91-269, pp. 23-26, primary granted, devoted bulk their briefing argument, poses III undisputed treatment receives confined subject scrutiny As said DeShaney Winnebago County Dept. Social Services, 489 189, 199-200, 109 998, 1005-1006, 103 249 (1989): 10 "[W]hen takes person custody holds will, Constitution imposes upon corresponding duty assume responsibility safety general being. . rationale principle simple enough: affirmative exercise power so restrains individual's liberty renders unable care himself, fails provide basic human needs—e.g., food, clothing, shelter, care, safety—it transgresses substantive limits set ." 11 Contemporary decency less. supra, U.S., 103-104, S.Ct., 290-291. Estelle, although accidental inadvertent adequate Amendment, prisoners" violates because constitutes unnecessary wanton infliction pain contemporary 104, 291. later officials' mind. " 'Whether characterizes received [the prisoner] inhuman confinement, combination both, apply articulated Estelle.' 2327. 12 aware decisions, they earnestly submit unless currently suffering ETS, That urged, protect merely threaten how imminent threat. 13 great agreeing authorities inmate's ignore sure very likely illness needless next week month year. 682, 98 2565, 2569, 57 522 (1978), punitive isolation crowded cells them infectious maladies hepatitis venereal disease. required remedy, even though occur immediately infection affect all those exposed. think successfully complain demonstrably unsafe drinking water waiting attack dysentery. Nor hold officials serious, communicable disease complaining shows symptoms. 14 protects novel proposition. said, furnished "reasonable safety." DeShaney, 200, 1005. "cruel convicted criminals conditions." Youngberg Romeo, 457 307, 315-316, 102 2452, 2457-2458, 73 28 (1982). odd deny proved Courts recognized remedy need await tragic event. Two cited approval Rhodes Chapman, 452 337, 352, n. 17, 101 2392, 2402, 69 59 (1981). Gates Collier, 1291 (CA5 1974), entitled threats personal electrical wiring, deficient firefighting measures, mingling contagious diseases inmates. Ramos Lamm, 639 559, 572 (CA10 1980), wait until actually assaulted obtaining relief. points out, cases effect dangers legion. 24-27. reject 15 contend permits "even truly significant proximate substantial inmate, long injury occurred suffer effects." Amicus Curiae 19. observes, teaches much. Government recognizes situations toxic similar substances "present likelihood magnitude—and broad consensus anyone substance prevented—that" Amendment's protection available manifested time. But submits any particular individual 'serious nee[d],' 20-22. however, reverse suggested States. ruled level endangered permit attempt case. course proof, plight. impossible IV 16 affirm states damage remand usual authority control order consider, abuse discretion taking evidence. injunction. 17 himself Plainly relevant fact City Ely five-pack-a-day smoker. back placed heavy smoker, Moreover, Director Prisons adopted formal January 10, 1992. "program, food preparation/serving, recreational areas" specifically designated areas. provides Wardens may, contingent space availability, designate dormitory settings, institutional classification committees nonsmokers bunking obtains. A1-A2. administered way minimize now 18 Also determining more than statistical seriousness assess considers expose unwillingly risk. words, 19 Appeals. Indeed, adoption mentioned above bear heavily indifference. note oral counsel depending administered, difficult demonstrate ignoring Tr. Oral Arg. 33. V 20 opinion. 21 So ordered. whom SCALIA joins, dissenting. 23 Last Term, Hudson McMillian, 503 1, 995, 117 156 (1992), prohibits use force causes minor injuries. Believing expanded "beyond bounds history precedent," id., 1010, I dissented. Today expands direction, mere injury. Because find acceptable Court's Hudson, dissent. 24 "[e]xcessive bail shall required, nor excessive fines imposed, punishments inflicted." Cruel Unusual Punishments Clause harm. decision, like every "conditions confinement" (1976), rests premise deprivations suffered "punish men[t]" purposes, inflicted part criminal sentence. see ---- - doubts premise. A. ratified, word "punishment" referred penalty commission crime. T. Cunningham, New Complete Law-Dictionary (1771) ("the transgressing laws"); Sheridan, General Dictionary English Language (1780) ("[a]ny vengeance crime"); Walker, Critical Pronouncing (1791) (same); G. Jacob, Law-Dictionary: Explaining Rise, Progress, Present State, Law 343 (1811) ("[t]he Law"); N. Webster, American (1828) offense"). definition today. legal term art, always meant "fine, penalty, court, offense committed him." Black's 1234 (6th ed. 1990). And understanding word, course, encompass injuries relation 26 Nor, far know, historical indicating framers ratifiers anything common There "no doubt" Declaration Rights 1689 "antecedent our text," Harmelin Michigan, 2680, 2686, 836 (1991) (opinion Scalia, J.), "the best evidence" suggests "cruell unusuall Punishments" provision response sentencing abuses King's Bench, 2688. Just suggestion harsh (or otherwise illegal) "punishment," debates surrounding framing ratification own Bill silent possibility. Elliot, Debates (2d 1854) (Congress prevented "inventing most unheard-of punishments, annexing crimes ") (emphasis added); Annals Cong. 753-754 (1789). early commentaries. Story, Commentaries 750-751 (1833); Cooley, Constitutional Limitations 694 (8th 1927). 27 To extent sustained ordinary meaning word. 1792, Delaware Constitution's analogue provided "Excessive inflicted; construction jails proper prisoners." Del. Rights, Art. I, XI (1792) added). members founding generation wished guarantee, knew do so. Judicial interpretations were, quite recently, text history. observed lower courts routinely rejected century, see, e.g., Negrich Hohn, 246 F.Supp. 173, 176 (WD Pa.1965) ("Punishment judicial tribunal accordance retribution conduct"), much intimate reach 185 years provision's existence. 1960s began applying deprivations, Wright McMann, 387 519, 525-526 (CA2 1967); Bethea Crouse, 417 504, 507-508 1969), 1976, 29 overwhelming, believe together decisions interpreting it, judges juries—but jailers —impose "punishment." minimum, original silence uniform precedent shift burden persuasion conditions. my view, discharged. certainly discharged Gamble. B 30 inadequate constituted punishment. ultimately recognizing essence, extension little ipse dixit. analysis discussion consisted following single sentence: "It suffices concern drafters proscribe 'torture[s]' 'barbar[ous]' methods punishment." 102, 290. purported rely "our interpreting" ibid., none six cited, 102-103, 290-291, deprivations—or, matter, does. All involved challenges offense.1 31 supported (virtually within years), 104-105, nn. 10-12, 106, 14, 290, 291-292, 292, reliance Jackson Bishop, 404 571 (CA8 1968). Jackson, itself, simply asserted deprivations; Circuit's problem two-sentence paragraph content opposing then it: "Neither wish draw meaningful distinction between statutorily prescribed disciplinary purposes. seems proscription application both." 580-581. Clause.2 32 Clause, party conduct unusual, pre-Estelle precedent, raise proscribes deprivation itself dispelled doubts. Were squarely therefore, vote overrule Estelle. today, straightforward is, instead, extension. 33 extended injuries; here, extends all.3 seriously doubt correctly decided, decline join holding. Stare decisis call hesitation overruling dubious demand outer limits. line actual, 34 Accordingly, syllabus prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Lumber Co., 200 321, 282, 287, L.Ed. 499. true defendants' housing each Gregg Georgia, 428 153, 96 2909, 49 859 death Wilkerson Utah, 99 130, 345 (1879), re Kemmler, 136 436, 930, 519 (1890), Louisiana ex rel. Francis Resweber, 329 459, 67 374, 91 422 (1947). Weems States, 217 349, 544, 54 793 (1910), challenge falsifying document, Trop Dulles, 356 86, 78 590, 630 (1958), presented revocation citizenship amounts desert military. event distinguishable. "strap" measure Arkansas prisons, least arguable whipping analogous implicated. measures violating rules different None including three ante, ____, threat district remedy; dispute conclusion [the] prisons 685, 2570. (1982), interests (under Due Process Clause) mentally retarded person, (1989), due process child beaten father home.

Category: 0