Legal Document

501 U.S. 294 111 S.Ct. 2321 115 L.Ed.2d 271 Pearly L. WILSON, Petitionerv.Richard SEITER et al. No. 89-7376. Argued Jan. 7, 1991. Decided June 17, Syllabus Petitioner Wilson, an Ohio prison inmate, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against respondents, state officials, alleging that certain conditions of his confinement constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation the Eighth Fourteenth Amendments. His affidavits described challenged charged authorities, after notification, had failed to take remedial action. The District Court granted summary judgment for Appeals affirmed on ground, inter alia, establish requisite culpable mind part respondents. Held: 1. A prisoner claiming violate Amendment must show a officials. See, e.g., Whitley v. Albers, 475 312, 319, 106 1078, 1084, 89 251. Rhodes Chapman, 452 337, 101 2392, 69 59, distinguished. An intent requirement is implicit Amendment's ban punishment. Wilson's suggested distinction between "short-term" or "one-time" (in which state-of-mind would apply) "continuing" "systemic" (where official be irrelevant) rejected. Pp. 296-302. 2. "deliberate indifference" standard applied Estelle Gamble, 429 97, 106, 97 285, 292, 50 251, claims involving medical care applies generally challenges confinement. There no merit respondents' contention should only cases personal, physical injury, malice appropriate challenging conditions. As teaches, "wantonness" conduct depends not its effect prisoner, but constraints facing official. 302-304. 3. erred failing consider applying instead "behavior marked by persistent malicious cruelty." It possible error was harmless, since court said established "[a]t best . negligence." Conceivably, however, have reached different disposition correct standard, so case remanded reconsideration basis. 304-306. 893 F.2d 861 (CA6 1990), vacated remanded. SCALIA, J., delivered opinion Court, REHNQUIST, C.J., O'CONNOR, KENNEDY, SOUTER, JJ., joined. WHITE, concurring judgment, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, STEVENS, Elizabeth Alexander, petitioner. William C. Bryson as amicus curiae, supporting petitioner, special leave Court. Rita S. Eppler, Justice SCALIA 1 This presents questions whether constitute officials and, if so, what required. 2 Wilson felon incarcerated at Hocking Correctional Facility (HCF) Nelsonville, Ohio. Alleging number Amendments, he brought this action respondents Richard P. Seiter, then Director Department Rehabilitation Correction, Carl Humphreys, warden HCF. complaint alleged overcrowding, excessive noise, insufficient locker storage space, inadequate heating cooling, improper ventilation, unclean restrooms, unsanitary dining facilities food preparation, housing with mentally physically ill inmates. sought declaratory injunctive relief, well $900,000 compensatory punitive damages. App. 2-9, 53-54, 62-63. 3 parties cross-motions affidavits. Petitioner's Respondents' denied some existed, efforts improve others. 4 Sixth Circuit affirmed, (1990), we certiorari, 498 ----, 41, 112 17 (1990). 5 * Amendment, States through Due Process Clause Robinson California, 370 660, 666, 82 1417, 1420, 8 758 (1962), prohibits infliction "cruel punishments" those convicted crimes. In 251 (1976), first acknowledged provision could deprivations were specifically sentence suffered during imprisonment. We rejected, inmate's claim doctors inflicted inadequately attending needs—because they possessed sufficiently mind. Since, said, " 'unnecessary wanton pain' implicates id., 104, S.Ct., 291 (quoting Gregg Georgia, 428 153, 173, 96 2909, 2925, 49 859 (1976) (joint opinion) (emphasis added)), advancing such must, minimum, allege "serious" needs. U.S., 292. "It can ibid. added); allegations "inadvertent failure provide adequate care," 105, "negligent diagnos[is]," simply fail 6 relied large measure earlier case, Louisiana ex rel. Francis Resweber, 329 459, 67 374, 91 L.Ed. 422 (1947), involved deprivation effort subject second electrocution attempt reason malfunction electric chair. Reed, writing plurality emphasized prohibited "the pain," 463, 376 added). Because been thwarted "unforeseeable accident," lacked necessary regarded "cruel," regardless actual suffering inflicted. "The situation unfortunate victim accident just though identical amount mental anguish pain any other occurrence, as, example, fire cell block." Id., 464, 376. Frankfurter, solely basis because "an innocent misadventure," 470, 379-80, might reach conclusion "a hypothetical situation, assumes series abortive attempts even single, cruelly willful attempt," 471, 380. 7 After Estelle, next confronted challenge 59 (1981). inmates Southern contended lodging two single ("double celling") rejected contention, concluding it amounts most theory double celling inflicts 348-349, 2400, constitutes "unnecessary pain" violates 346, 2399. Constitution, "does mandate comfortable prisons," 349, denying minimal civilized life's necessities," 347, 2399, are grave form violation. Our holding turned objective component (was serious?), did subjective (did act mind?). That eliminated made clear our relevant (1986). inmate shot guard quell disturbance subjected stated: 9 "After incarceration, unnecessary forbidden Amendment. To punishment, does purport all involve more than ordinary lack due prisoner's interests safety. obduracy wantonness, inadvertence good faith, characterize Cruel Unusual Punishments Clause, occurs connection establishing confinement, supplying needs, restoring control over tumultuous cellblock." 1084 added; citations omitted; internal quotations omitted). 10 These inquiry into official's when claimed has punishment.1 See also Graham Connor, 490 386, 398, 109 ,S.Ct. 1865, 1872-73, 104 443 (1989). concedes respect He acknowledges, instance, boiler malfunctions accidentally cold winter, claim, suffers objectively significant harm. Reply Brief 12-14. Petitioner, United curiae support suggests draw irrelevant). perceive neither logical nor practical distinction. source predilections itself, bans If formally meted out statute sentencing judge, element attributed inflicting officer before qualify. Judge Posner observed: 11 deliberate intended chastise deter. word means today; meant eighteenth century. [I]f [a] stepped toe broke it, anything remotely like accepted meaning word, consult usage 1791, 1868, 1985." Duckworth Franzen, 780 645, 652 (CA7 1985), cert. denied, 479 816, 107 71, 93 28 12 Johnson Glick, 481 1028, 1032 (CA2) (Friendly, J.), ("The thread common [Eighth cases] 'punishment' deliberately administered penal disciplinary purpose"), sub nom. John Johnson, 414 1033, 94 462, 38 324 (1973). Cf. Block Rutherford, 468 576, 584, 3227, 3231-32, 438 (1984); Bell Wolfish, 441 520, 537-539, 99 1861, 1873-1874, 60 447 (1979). long duration condition may make easier knowledge hence intent, cf. Canton Harris, 489 378, 390, n. 10, 1197, 1205, 103 412 (1989); there why cause evaporate. proposed short-term/long-term defies rational implementation. Apart from difficulty determining day hour divides categories (is same conditions?) violations specific often consist composite do lend themselves pigeonholing. McCarthy Bronson, 500 1737, --- ---- (1991).2 13 allow interpose defense that, despite good-faith obtain funding, fiscal beyond their prevent elimination inhumane Even hard understand how punishment" either "punishment" not; cannot alternately required ignored policy considerations dictate. At rate, validity "cost" negating issue never advanced it. Nor, note, indication use avoid (1976). II 14 Having determined based penalty imposed crime require mind, remains us above, say offending wanton. makes clear, context wantonness fixed "due regard differences kind objection lodged." 320, 1084. Where (as ) response disturbance, actions necessarily taken "in haste, pressure," balanced "competing institutional concerns safety staff inmates." Ibid. emergency found consisted acting 'maliciously sadistically very purpose causing harm.' 320-321, 1085 F.2d, 1033). Dudley Stubbs, 1034, 1037-1038, 1095, 1097-1098, 230 (1989) (O'CONNOR, dissenting denial certiorari). contrast, State's responsibility attend needs prisoners ordinarily clash equally important governmental responsibilities," Whitley, context, held, wantonness. 15 agree (and lower courts consistently see, LaFaut Smith, 834 389, 391-392 (CA4 1987)) high prescribed apply cases. argues extent officials' all, justification demanding Estelle's indifference." Respondents counter "cases personal injury nature," this, "do detriment bodily integrity, pain, loss life." 28-29. 16 suggestion upon prisoner. teaches assuming harmful enough satisfy see (1981), characterized "wanton" From standpoint, "conditions confinement." Indeed, receives much "condition" fed, clothes issued, temperature cell, protection afforded general matter, these nonmedical materially Thus, retired Powell concluded: "Whether one characterizes treatment received [the prisoner] combination both, 'deliberate indifference' articulated Estelle." LaFaut, 391-392. Lopez Robinson, 914 486, 492 1990); Givens Jones, 900 1229, 1234 (CA8 Cortes-Quinones Jimenez-Nettleship, 842 556, 558 (CA1), 488 823, 68, 102 45 (1988); Morgan Columbia, 263 U.S.App.D.C. 69, 77-78, 824 1049, 1057-1058 (1987). III now whether, light foregoing analysis, affirming Court's grant favor. 18 preliminary address petitioner's dismissing, issue, (inadequate inmates, overcrowding) ground proved, serious Rhodes. dismiss condition, petitioner contends, remain dispute, each "considered overall challenged," 36. bases observation "alone combination," deprive necessities. 2399-2400. 19 besides here understood, Wellman Faulkner, 715 269, 275 1983), 1217, 3587, 885 Hoptowit Ray, 682 1237, 1247 (CA9 1982); Wright Rushen, 642 1129, 1133 1981), statement broad proposition asserts. Some combination" alone, mutually enforcing produces identifiable human need food, warmth, exercise—for low night combined blankets. Compare Spain Procunier, 600 189, 199 1979) (outdoor exercise otherwise confined small cells almost 24 hours per day) Clay Miller, 626 345, 347 1980) access room day). interact fashion far cry saying seamless web purposes. Nothing amorphous "overall conditions" rise level exists. While express relative gravity various pass threshold test deprivation, reject isolation. 20 disposing three Rhodes, proceeded uphold dismissal remaining critical portion reads follows: 21 "[T]he requires behavior cruelty. record fails assert facts suggesting behavior. best, appellants' evidences negligence appellees' parts implementing standards maintaining Negligence, clearly, eighth amendment claim." 867. 22 appears consistent reference standard" elsewhere opinion, believed criterion liability acted "maliciously harm," 1085. sure, mere lenient point harmless. given further thought finding negligence" realized merely argument fortiori, determination essential judgment. Out abundance caution, vacate remand standard. 23 ordered. whom STEVENS join, 25 majority holds responsible inconsistent prior decisions, I concur 26 established, criminals scrutiny without requirement. linchpin majority's analysis therefore assertion "[i]f qualify." Ante, 300 reasoning disregards decisions where "meted out" judge. 27 considered relationship Hutto Finney, 437 678, 98 2565, 57 522 (1978). There, entered orders Arkansas system violated while conceding unusual, aspects relief: (1) order limiting isolation 30 days; (2) award attorney's fees. upholding limitation isolation, scrutiny: 29 punishments, applicable 'proscribe[s] barbarous punishments.' [97 290, 251] [ ]. penalties grossly disproportionate offense, Weems States, 217 367 [30 544, 549, 54 793] (1910) ], transgress today's ' "broad idealistic concepts dignity, standards, humanity, decency." supra, [429 U.S.,] 290], quoting Jackson Bishop, 404 571, 579 1968). Confinement standards." [437 685, 2571 Focusing explained "no [district] court's whole, continued prohibition punishment." 687, 2571. 31 addressed time disputed particular 344-345, 2397-2398. "double celling" prison. addressing began reiterating challenge: 32 "Today punishments which, although barbarous, 'involve pain,' [428 153,] 173 [96 859] severity crime, Coker 433 592 2861, 2866, 53 982] (1977) (plurality opinion); 349 (1910). Among wanton' inflictions 'totally penological justification.' 183 2929]; 290-91, 33 "No static 'test' exist determine 'must evolving decency mark progress maturing society.' Trop Dulles, 356 86, [78 590, 598, 630] (1958) opinion)." 2399 (footnote 34 principles operate confinement: 35 "These compose issue. Conditions warranting held because, worst result torture, less cases, purpose. 290]. prisons resulted unquestioned basic Gamble Hutto, alone combination, Such contemporary recognized 103-104 290-291]." 36 Finally, "there evidence circumstances crimes imprisonment." 348, 2400. crystal therefore, treated "formally judge," ante, 300—we examine severity, government 37 relies (1947); (1976); (1986), none Instead, acts omissions directed individual prisoners. prison, allegedly delivery plaintiff. Similarly, shooting plaintiff riot, crucial "unlike 'conduct all' unconstitutional Gillespie Crawford, 833 47, (CA5 1987) (per curiam ), reinstated en banc, 858 1101, 1103 1988). Moreover, expressly supports discussing 39 "An inflict required, 291, ('deliberate punishment), harsh 'conditions confinement' unless 'are criminal offenders pay offenses [101 59] (1981)." 40 places great weight subsequent dictum "[i]t 298-299. "conduct" statement, referring "conduct all," rather "harsh referred opinion. 41 Not departure precedent, likely will prove impossible many Inhumane cumulative inactions numerous inside outside sometimes period time. circumstances, whose examined, offers real guidance truth, meaningful considering institution, system.1 approach unwise. leaves open possibility, able defeat showing caused funding legislature indifference 301-302.2 my view, having chosen imprisonment ensure comport "contemporary decency" DeShaney Winnebago Cty. Dept. Social Services, 198-200, 998, 1004-1006, 249 argues: "[S]eriously inhumane, pervasive insulated constitutional managing institution exhibited conscientious concern ameliorating problems, (albeit unsuccessful) end." Amicus Curiae 19. ultimate decision, fear, "serious needs," go unredressed meaningless search concurrence distinguish confinement" "specific prisoners." Post, 309. seems us, deprived needed treatment, everyone else. Undoubtedly are, greater prisoners, whatever "condition not—much not. concurrence's imaginative interpretation imagined Courts Appeals—or aware litigants Appeals—which routinely prisonwide treatment. Toussaint McCarthy, 801 1080, 1111-1113 1986); French Owens, 777 1250, 1254-1255 1985). Of course "punishment"—only suffice "individual One wonders depriving who murderers suffice; Cellblock B. unsupportable principle unworkable practice. concurrence, going both argued here, takes position know about them, "punishment." For reasons described, principle, contradicted purports find (1978), description question remedied apart fees pertained "punitive isolation," post, 307. think passed uninvited silentio, self-evidently intent. describes "for 307 original). What mention decided, 298) When borne evident lengthy quotation set forth 307-309, provides support, way dictum, position. telling examined conditions, Tillery 907 418, 426-428 (CA3 Foulds Corley, 52, 54-55 1987); 1252-1254 817, 77, (1986); Spellman, 753 779, 784 courts, excuse perpetuation Smith Sullivan, 611 1039, 1043-1044 1980). also, 274 Ramos Lamm, 639 559, 573, (CA10 1980), 450 1041, 1759, 68 239 (1981); Battle Anderson, 564 388, 396 1977); Gates Collier, 1291, 1319 1974).

Classification Label: 0