Hunter v. Helton

11 Citing cases

  1. Mitchell v. Phillips

    Civil Action 5:24-CV-P53-JHM (W.D. Ky. Nov. 8, 2024)

    16, 2023) (concluding, in ruling upon a motion for a preliminary injunction, that the plaintiff had failed to show a clear likelihood of success on the merits of his Eighth Amendment claim based on his allegation that prison officials gave him only one roll of toilet paper per week); Redwine v. Rutherford Cnty., No. 3:15-cv-00244, 2015 WL 2185911 (M.D. Tenn. May 11, 2015) (“A limited but regular supply of free toilet paper, with more available for purchase, does not rise to [the requisite] level of deprivation ”); Hunter v. Helton, No. 1:10-cv-00021, 2010 WL 2405092, at *8 (M.D. Tenn. June 10, 2010) (dismissing claim as insufficient because hygienic deprivation was only temporary where the prisoner alleged that he received only one roll of toilet paper per week and had to use his clothes to wipe when he ran out). Thus, because the Court finds that Plaintiff's allegations fail to satisfy the objective prong of a constitutional conditions-of-confinement claim, the Court need not consider the subjective prong of the Fourteenth Amendment standard.

  2. Bennett v. Knight

    Civil Action 5:24-CV-P138-CRS (W.D. Ky. Aug. 29, 2024)

    The Court agrees with the other district courts which have held that claims like this one fail to satisfy the objective prong of a conditions-of-confinement claim. See, e.g., Green v. Caron, No. 3:22-cv-1397 (KAD), 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185161, at *17 (D. Conn. Oct. 16, 2023) (concluding, in ruling upon a motion for a preliminary injunction, that the plaintiff had failed to show a clear likelihood of success on the merits of his Eighth Amendment claim based on his allegation that prison officials gave him only one roll of toilet paper per week); Redwine v. Rutherford Cnty., No. 3:15-cv-00244, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61279, at *6 (M.D. Tenn. May 11, 2015) (“A limited but regular supply of free toilet paper, with more available for purchase, does not rise to [the requisite] level of deprivation ....”); Hunter v. Helton, No. 1:10-cv-00021, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57179, at *22 (M.D. Tenn. June 10, 2010) (dismissing claim as insufficient because hygienic deprivation was only temporary where the prisoner alleged that he received only one roll of toilet paper per week and had to use his clothes to wipe when he ran out).

  3. Brown v. Montgomery Cnty. Mgmt.

    3:22-CV-00580 (M.D. Tenn. Oct. 25, 2022)

    Construing Plaintiff's allegations liberally and considering the nature of Plaintiff's allegations, the Court finds that Plaintiff states a colorable Section 1983 claim against Thomas for purposes of the required PLRA screening. See Mills v. City of Barbourville, 389 F.3d 568, 579 (6th Cir. 2004) (recognizing that “a prison policy forcing prisoners . . . to be exposed to regular surveillance by officers of the opposite sex while naked-for example while in the shower or using a toilet in a cell-would provide the basis of a claim on which relief could be granted”); Warfield v. Crawford, No. 3:12-cv-00483, Doc. No. 9 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 27, 2012) (finding that prisoner-plaintiff stated a colorable claim under Section 1983 if he alleges that guards of the opposite sex regularly viewed him nude while showering); Hunter v. Helton, No. 1:10-cv-00021, 2010 WL 2405092, at *7 (M.D. Tenn. June 10, 2010) (same). Plaintiff will be required to provide much more information in support of this claim going forward.

  4. Brown v. Montgomery Cnty. Mgmt.

    3:22-CV-00580 (M.D. Tenn. Oct. 5, 2022)

    See Mills v. City of Barbourville, 389 F.3d 568, 579 (6th Cir. 2004) (recognizing that “a prison policy forcing prisoners . . . to be exposed to regular surveillance by officers of the opposite sex while naked-for example while in the shower or using a toilet in a cell-would provide the basis of a claim on which relief could be granted”); Warfield v. Crawford, No. 3:12-cv-00483, Doc. No. 9 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 27, 2012) (finding that prisoner-plaintiff stated a colorable claim under Section 1983 if he alleges that guards of the opposite sex regularly viewed him nude while showering); Hunter v. Helton, No. 1:10-cv-00021, 2010 WL 2405092, at *7 (M.D. Tenn. June 10, 2010) (same). However, in his Motion to Amend Complaint, Plaintiff does not name any individuals responsible for the shower situation at the Montgomery County Jail.

  5. Oxendine v. Doe

    No. 3:20-cv-00764 (M.D. Tenn. Sep. 24, 2020)   Cited 1 times

    Under the Eighth Amendment, Oxendine has alleged sufficiently serious deprivations that falls below "a minimal civilized measure of life's necessities." Hamby, 2013 WL 3315494, at *5; see also Hunter v. Helton, No. 1:10-cv-00021, 2010 WL 2405092, at *4 (M.D. Tenn. June 10, 2010) (finding pro se plaintiff stated a colorable conditions of confinement claim based on being made to unwittingly "expose his person" to other inmates and visitors). Under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Oxendine has alleged deprivations that were either intended to punish or were not rationally related to a government purpose or excessive in relation to that purpose.

  6. Smith v. Long

    No. 3:18-cv-00061 (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 13, 2018)   Cited 10 times
    Finding that a prisoner's allegation that the jail had cameras in bathroom stalls failed to rise to the level of a constitutional violation because the plaintiff did not allege that females viewed the footage

    Notably, the plaintiff does not allege that he, a male inmate, must expose his naked body to female guards while showering or performing bodily functions; had the plaintiff so alleged, he may have stated a colorable claim. See Hunter v. Helton, No. 1:10-cv-00021, 2010 WL 2405092, at *7 (M.D. Tenn. Jun. 10, 2010)(an inmate states a colorable claim if he alleges that guards of the opposite sex regularly viewed him nude while showering); Mills v. City of Barbourville, 389 F.3d 568, 579 (6th Cir. 2004)(recognizing that "a prison policy forcing prisoners . . . to be exposed to regular surveillance by officers of the opposite sex while naked-for example while in the shower or using a toilet in a cell-would provide the basis of a claim on which relief could be granted"); see also Sumpter-Bey v. Weatherford, No. 3:10-cv-1021 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 30, 2012)(considering whether the female guards "regularly and closely" viewed the male inmates while they showered and/or whether cross-gender monitoring of the showers at the Rutherford County Adult Detention Facility failed to serve legitimate penological security, staffing, and equal employment opportunity interests). But see Garrett v. Thaler, 560 F. App'x 375, 380-81 (5th Cir. 2014)(affirming the district court's finding that "the placement of recording c

  7. Breeden v. Fuson

    No. 3:15-cv-00479 (M.D. Tenn. Jun. 19, 2015)

    In addition, to the extent that the plaintiff asserts that his Eighth Amendment rights are violated by having to expose his naked body to female guards while showering or performing bodily functions, he has stated a colorable claim. See Hunter v. Helton, No. 1:10-cv-00021, 2010 WL 2405092, at *7 (M.D. Tenn. Jun. 10, 2010)(an inmate states a colorable claim if he alleges that guards of the opposite sex regularly viewed him nude while showering); Mills v. City of Barbourville, 389 F.3d 568, 579 (6Cir. 2004)(recognizing that "a prison policy forcing prisoners . . . to be exposed to regular surveillance by officers of the opposite sex while naked-for example while in the shower or using a toilet in a cell-would provide the basis of a claim on which relief could be granted").

  8. Redwine v. Rutherford Cnty.

    Case No. 3:15-cv-00244 (M.D. Tenn. May. 11, 2015)   Cited 2 times

    A limited but regular supply of free toilet paper, with more available for purchase, does not rise to that level of deprivation, as this court has already concluded. See Hunter v. Helton, No. 1:10-CV-00021, 2010 WL 2405092, at *8 (M.D. Tenn. June 10, 2010) ("Thus, the plaintiff's claim that one roll of toilet paper per inmate per week violates the Eighth Amendment will be dismissed."). The plaintiff's allegations about denial of access to a law library are also deficient. Attachments to the complaint establish that the plaintiff has repeatedly demanded access to a "law library" and repeatedly been told that the jail does not have a law library but will provide him with copies of any materials he requests via legal information request form. (Docket Entry No. 1, at 5.)

  9. Lyle v. Montgomery Cnty. Jail

    No. 3:15-cv-0480 (M.D. Tenn. Apr. 28, 2015)   Cited 2 times

    Other courts have recognized that prisoners' Eighth Amendment rights are violated by having to expose their naked bodies to prison guards of the opposite sex while showering or performing bodily functions. See, e.g., Baggett v. Fuson, 2015 WL 328348, at *4 (M.D. Tenn. Jan. 23, 2015) (Campbell, J.) (citing Mills v. City of Barbourville, 389 F.3d 568, 579 (6th Cir. 2004) (recognizing that "a prison policy forcing prisoners . . . to be exposed to regular surveillance by officers of the opposite sex while naked—for example while in the shower or using a toilet in a cell—would provide the basis of a claim on which relief could be granted"); Hunter v. Helton, No. 1:10-cv-00021, 2010 WL 2405092, at *7 (M.D. Tenn. June 10, 2010) (holding that an inmate states a colorable claim if he alleges that guards of the opposite sex regularly viewed him nude while showering). The Court finds that the complaint states a colorable claim against Montgomery County based on the plaintiff's allegations that female guards watch male inmates shower.

  10. Baggett v. Fuson

    No. 3:14-cv-02366 (M.D. Tenn. Jan. 23, 2015)   Cited 6 times
    Dismissing plaintiffs' denial-of-haircut claims where they had "not allege[d] lack of shampoo or soap with which to wash their hair . . . [or] that they [had] been harmed by having to wear longer hair, such as a claim that they contracted lice"

    To the extent that the plaintiffs assert that their Eighth Amendment rights are violated by having to expose their naked bodies to female guards while showering or performing bodily functions, they have stated a colorable claim. See Hunter v. Helton, No. 1:10-cv-00021, 2010 WL 2405092, at *7 (M.D. Tenn. Jun. 10, 2010)(an inmate states a colorable claim if he alleges that guards of the opposite sex regularly viewed him nude while showering); Mills v. City of Barbourville, 389 F.3d 568, 579 (6th Cir. 2004)(recognizing that "a prison policy forcing prisoners . . . to be exposed to regular surveillance by officers of the opposite sex while naked-for example while in the shower or using a toilet in a cell-would provide the basis of a claim on which relief could be granted"). The complaint does not make clear whether the inmates lack discretion as to when they may take their showers, such as while a female correctional officer is not stationed in the tower.