×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Exposure to Tobacco Smoke Violates Eighth Amendment
Two non-smoking Tennessee prisoners suffering from various medical problems were forcibly celled with prisoners who smoked. They claim the Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) of their cellmates aggravated their existing medical conditions. They filed suit in district court under § 1983 claiming prison officials had violated their eighth amendment rights by double celling them with smokers. The district court dismissed the suit.
On appeal, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded. The court agreed with the four other circuit courts who have held that compelling non-smokers with serious medical needs to share a cell with a smoker violates the eighth amendment.
The Supreme Court has held that denial of adequate medical care to prisoners violate the eighth amendment. The court of appeals held: "Medical consequences of tobacco smoke do not differ from other medical problems. Prisoners allergic to the components of tobacco smoke, or who can attribute their serious medical conditions to smoke are entitled to appropriate medical treatment. Which may include removal from places where smoke hovers."
The court remanded the case back to the lower court for a factual determination of whether the impact of tobacco smoke on the plaintiffs was serious enough to cause an eighth amendment violation. See: Hunt v. Reynolds, 974 F.2d 734 (6th Cir. 1992).
PLN readers contemplating litigation on this issue should be aware that the U.S. Supreme Court has granted certiori to McKinney v. Anderson, 959 F.2d 853 (9th Cir. 1992), sub nom Helling v. Anderson, 112 S.Ct. 2024 (1992). It is a case out of Nevada where a non-smoker was celled with a heavy smoker. The Ninth Circuit ruled in the prisoner's favor. The Supreme Court will therefore decide whether or not forced exposure to ETS violates the eighth amendment. A decision should be issued by July of 1993. PLN will report the case whichever way it goes.
On appeal, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded. The court agreed with the four other circuit courts who have held that compelling non-smokers with serious medical needs to share a cell with a smoker violates the eighth amendment.
The Supreme Court has held that denial of adequate medical care to prisoners violate the eighth amendment. The court of appeals held: "Medical consequences of tobacco smoke do not differ from other medical problems. Prisoners allergic to the components of tobacco smoke, or who can attribute their serious medical conditions to smoke are entitled to appropriate medical treatment. Which may include removal from places where smoke hovers."
The court remanded the case back to the lower court for a factual determination of whether the impact of tobacco smoke on the plaintiffs was serious enough to cause an eighth amendment violation. See: Hunt v. Reynolds, 974 F.2d 734 (6th Cir. 1992).
PLN readers contemplating litigation on this issue should be aware that the U.S. Supreme Court has granted certiori to McKinney v. Anderson, 959 F.2d 853 (9th Cir. 1992), sub nom Helling v. Anderson, 112 S.Ct. 2024 (1992). It is a case out of Nevada where a non-smoker was celled with a heavy smoker. The Ninth Circuit ruled in the prisoner's favor. The Supreme Court will therefore decide whether or not forced exposure to ETS violates the eighth amendment. A decision should be issued by July of 1993. PLN will report the case whichever way it goes.
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Hunt v. Reynolds
| Year | 1992 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 974 F.2d 734 (6th Cir. 1992) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
Hunt v. Reynolds, 974 F.2d 734 (6th Cir. 09/10/1992)
[1] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
[2] No. 91-5711
[4] decided: September 10, 1992.
[5] EANOS EARL HUNT AND RAYMOND ROGER JONES, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
v.
JEFF REYNOLDS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.
[6] On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. District No. 90-00703. Thomas G. Hull, Chief District Judge.
[7] For EANOS EARL HUNT, Plaintiff - Appellant: Eanos Earl Hunt, BRIEFED, #100654, Morgan County Regional Correctional Facility, P.O. Box 2000, Wartburg, TN 37887. Donald E. Spurrell, BRIEFED, 615-926-9421, 128 E. Market Street, Johnson City, TN 37604.
[8] For RAYMOND ROGER JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant: Raymond Roger Jones, BRIEFED, #104119, Northeast Correctional Center, P.O. Box 5000, Mountain City, TN 37683. Donald E. Spurrell, BRIEFED, 615-926-9421, 128 E. Market Street, Johnson City, TN 37604.
[9] For JEFF REYNOLDS, Commissioner, DAVID MILLS, Warden, BOBBY WALLS, Unit Manager, JEWELL TAYLOR, CHARLES BUTTERINI, Defendants - Appellees; Mark A. Hudson, Asst. Attorney Gen., BRIEFED, 615-741-7501, Office of the Attorney General of Tennessee, 450 James Robertson Parkway, Nashville, TN 37243-0485.
[10] Before: Nelson, Norris, and Suhrheinrich, Circuit Judges.
[11] Author: Suhrheinrich
[12] SUHRHEINRICH, Circuit Judge. Eanos Earl Hunt and Raymond Roger Jones are inmates charged to the care of the Tennessee Department of Corrections. Each suffers from a variety of pre-existing medical conditions. Hunt, who is sixty-three, suffers from seizure disorder and pulmonary disease and has been diagnosed with unstable angina, coronary artery disease, triple vessel disease, and peptic ulcer disease. Jones's condition is less well-documented. However, the district court found that he suffers from heart disease. At various times in the past and at present, each has been compelled, against his expressed preference, to share a cell with a smoker. This, they claim, has aggravated their respective pre-existing medical conditions. Hunt and Jones brought this action, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming deprivation of their Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights and seeking monetary and injunctive relief. The district court held that they failed to establish a violation of the Eighth Amendment. We reverse and remand.
[13] II
[14] Section 1983 provides that "every person who, under color of [state law] . . ., subjects [another] . . . to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and law, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress." Failure to provide adequate medical care violates the Eighth Amendment if the prisoner can also "show that the state defendants exhibited a deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs." DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dep't of Soc'l Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 198-99, 109 S. Ct. 998, 103 L. Ed. 2d 249 n.5 (1989). Hunt and Jones argue that their serious medical need for a smoke-free cell was ignored in violation of the Eighth Amendment. To be successful, this claim must contain both an objective component, that their medical needs were sufficiently serious, see Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 69 L. Ed. 2d 59, 101 S. Ct. 2392 (1981); McKinney v. Anderson, 959 F.2d 853, 854 (9th Cir.), cert. granted, 112 S. Ct. 3024, 120 L. Ed. 2d 896 (1992); Steading v. Thompson, 941 F.2d 498, 500 (7th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 117 L. Ed. 2d 445, 112 S. Ct. 1206 (1992), and a subjective component, that the defendant state officials were deliberately indifferent to the plaintiffs' needs, see Wilson v. Seiter, 115 L. Ed. 2d 271, 111 S. Ct. 2321 (1991); McKinney, 959 F.2d at 854; Steading, 941 F.2d at 500.
[15] The circuits are in accord that mere exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke ("ETS"), without more, does not constitute a deprivation of a prisoner's Eighth Amendment rights. See McKinney, 959 F.2d at 854, aff'g 924 F.2d 1500, 1503-04 (9th Cir. 1991); Clemmons v. Bohannon, 956 F.2d 1523, 1528 (10th Cir. 1992) (en banc); Steading, 941 F.2d at 500; Wilson v. Lynaugh, 878 F.2d 846, 849 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 969, 107 L. Ed. 2d 382, 110 S. Ct. 417 (1989). However, those circuits that have addressed the question have accepted the possibility that a prisoner may be able to show a medical need to be placed with a non-smoking cellmate that is sufficiently serious to implicate the Eighth Amendment. See McKinney, 959 F.2d at 854; Clemmons, 956 F.2d at 1528; Steading, 941 F.2d at 500. As the Fifth Circuit stated, "the Eighth Amendment may afford protection against conditions of confinement which constitute health threats but not against those which cause mere discomfort or inconvenience." Wilson, 878 F.2d at 849. The issue then is whether the prisoners' pre-existing medical conditions are such that exposing them to ETS represents a serious health threat or constitutes mere discomfort.
[16] The Supreme Court has consistently held that the denial of adequate medical care can violate the Eighth Amendment. See, e.g., DeShaney, 489 U.S. at 198- 99. "Medical consequences of tobacco smoke do not differ from other medical problems. Prisoners allergic to the components of tobacco smoke, or who can attribute their serious medical conditions to smoke, are entitled to appropriate medical treatment, which may include removal from places where smoke hovers." Steading, 941 F.2d at 500. Thus we will adhere to the position, adopted by every circuit to address the issue, that the Eighth Amendment's objective component is violated by forcing a prisoner with a serious medical need for a smoke-free environment to share his cell with an inmate who smokes.
[17] The district court did not consider the severity of Hunt's or Jones's medical condition or find that they do not suffer from serious smoke-related medical problems. Indeed, the record, particularly with respect to Hunt, indicates the contrary.*fn1 As such, we cannot determine whether Hunt or Jones was entitled to the medical treatment they have continually sought, the removal of smoking cellmates. Therefore, we remand the case for determination of whether the impact of ETS on the plaintiffs' medical conditions is sufficiently serious to satisfy the objective component of the Eighth Amendment.
[18] Because the district court granted summary judgment under the objective component of the Eighth Amendment, it did not consider the subjective component, i.e., whether the various defendants acted with deliberate indifference. Consequently, the record is not sufficiently developed to allow appellate review of this issue, and we do not consider it.
[19] III
[20] We reverse the district court's order granting summary judgment against Eanos Earl Hunt and Raymond Roger Jones and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
[21] Disposition
[22] Reversed and Remanded
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opinion Footnotes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[23] *fn1 We express no opinion as to whether these indications constitute admissible evidence or, if so, whether they are sufficient to preclude summary judgment on this ground.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
[2] No. 91-5711
[4] decided: September 10, 1992.
[5] EANOS EARL HUNT AND RAYMOND ROGER JONES, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
v.
JEFF REYNOLDS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.
[6] On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. District No. 90-00703. Thomas G. Hull, Chief District Judge.
[7] For EANOS EARL HUNT, Plaintiff - Appellant: Eanos Earl Hunt, BRIEFED, #100654, Morgan County Regional Correctional Facility, P.O. Box 2000, Wartburg, TN 37887. Donald E. Spurrell, BRIEFED, 615-926-9421, 128 E. Market Street, Johnson City, TN 37604.
[8] For RAYMOND ROGER JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant: Raymond Roger Jones, BRIEFED, #104119, Northeast Correctional Center, P.O. Box 5000, Mountain City, TN 37683. Donald E. Spurrell, BRIEFED, 615-926-9421, 128 E. Market Street, Johnson City, TN 37604.
[9] For JEFF REYNOLDS, Commissioner, DAVID MILLS, Warden, BOBBY WALLS, Unit Manager, JEWELL TAYLOR, CHARLES BUTTERINI, Defendants - Appellees; Mark A. Hudson, Asst. Attorney Gen., BRIEFED, 615-741-7501, Office of the Attorney General of Tennessee, 450 James Robertson Parkway, Nashville, TN 37243-0485.
[10] Before: Nelson, Norris, and Suhrheinrich, Circuit Judges.
[11] Author: Suhrheinrich
[12] SUHRHEINRICH, Circuit Judge. Eanos Earl Hunt and Raymond Roger Jones are inmates charged to the care of the Tennessee Department of Corrections. Each suffers from a variety of pre-existing medical conditions. Hunt, who is sixty-three, suffers from seizure disorder and pulmonary disease and has been diagnosed with unstable angina, coronary artery disease, triple vessel disease, and peptic ulcer disease. Jones's condition is less well-documented. However, the district court found that he suffers from heart disease. At various times in the past and at present, each has been compelled, against his expressed preference, to share a cell with a smoker. This, they claim, has aggravated their respective pre-existing medical conditions. Hunt and Jones brought this action, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming deprivation of their Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights and seeking monetary and injunctive relief. The district court held that they failed to establish a violation of the Eighth Amendment. We reverse and remand.
[13] II
[14] Section 1983 provides that "every person who, under color of [state law] . . ., subjects [another] . . . to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and law, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress." Failure to provide adequate medical care violates the Eighth Amendment if the prisoner can also "show that the state defendants exhibited a deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs." DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dep't of Soc'l Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 198-99, 109 S. Ct. 998, 103 L. Ed. 2d 249 n.5 (1989). Hunt and Jones argue that their serious medical need for a smoke-free cell was ignored in violation of the Eighth Amendment. To be successful, this claim must contain both an objective component, that their medical needs were sufficiently serious, see Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 69 L. Ed. 2d 59, 101 S. Ct. 2392 (1981); McKinney v. Anderson, 959 F.2d 853, 854 (9th Cir.), cert. granted, 112 S. Ct. 3024, 120 L. Ed. 2d 896 (1992); Steading v. Thompson, 941 F.2d 498, 500 (7th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 117 L. Ed. 2d 445, 112 S. Ct. 1206 (1992), and a subjective component, that the defendant state officials were deliberately indifferent to the plaintiffs' needs, see Wilson v. Seiter, 115 L. Ed. 2d 271, 111 S. Ct. 2321 (1991); McKinney, 959 F.2d at 854; Steading, 941 F.2d at 500.
[15] The circuits are in accord that mere exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke ("ETS"), without more, does not constitute a deprivation of a prisoner's Eighth Amendment rights. See McKinney, 959 F.2d at 854, aff'g 924 F.2d 1500, 1503-04 (9th Cir. 1991); Clemmons v. Bohannon, 956 F.2d 1523, 1528 (10th Cir. 1992) (en banc); Steading, 941 F.2d at 500; Wilson v. Lynaugh, 878 F.2d 846, 849 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 969, 107 L. Ed. 2d 382, 110 S. Ct. 417 (1989). However, those circuits that have addressed the question have accepted the possibility that a prisoner may be able to show a medical need to be placed with a non-smoking cellmate that is sufficiently serious to implicate the Eighth Amendment. See McKinney, 959 F.2d at 854; Clemmons, 956 F.2d at 1528; Steading, 941 F.2d at 500. As the Fifth Circuit stated, "the Eighth Amendment may afford protection against conditions of confinement which constitute health threats but not against those which cause mere discomfort or inconvenience." Wilson, 878 F.2d at 849. The issue then is whether the prisoners' pre-existing medical conditions are such that exposing them to ETS represents a serious health threat or constitutes mere discomfort.
[16] The Supreme Court has consistently held that the denial of adequate medical care can violate the Eighth Amendment. See, e.g., DeShaney, 489 U.S. at 198- 99. "Medical consequences of tobacco smoke do not differ from other medical problems. Prisoners allergic to the components of tobacco smoke, or who can attribute their serious medical conditions to smoke, are entitled to appropriate medical treatment, which may include removal from places where smoke hovers." Steading, 941 F.2d at 500. Thus we will adhere to the position, adopted by every circuit to address the issue, that the Eighth Amendment's objective component is violated by forcing a prisoner with a serious medical need for a smoke-free environment to share his cell with an inmate who smokes.
[17] The district court did not consider the severity of Hunt's or Jones's medical condition or find that they do not suffer from serious smoke-related medical problems. Indeed, the record, particularly with respect to Hunt, indicates the contrary.*fn1 As such, we cannot determine whether Hunt or Jones was entitled to the medical treatment they have continually sought, the removal of smoking cellmates. Therefore, we remand the case for determination of whether the impact of ETS on the plaintiffs' medical conditions is sufficiently serious to satisfy the objective component of the Eighth Amendment.
[18] Because the district court granted summary judgment under the objective component of the Eighth Amendment, it did not consider the subjective component, i.e., whether the various defendants acted with deliberate indifference. Consequently, the record is not sufficiently developed to allow appellate review of this issue, and we do not consider it.
[19] III
[20] We reverse the district court's order granting summary judgment against Eanos Earl Hunt and Raymond Roger Jones and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
[21] Disposition
[22] Reversed and Remanded
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opinion Footnotes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[23] *fn1 We express no opinion as to whether these indications constitute admissible evidence or, if so, whether they are sufficient to preclude summary judgment on this ground.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------