. However, since “exposure to human waste carries particular weight in the conditions calculus,” Martin v. Gearhart, 712 Fed.Appx. 179, 187 (3d Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (quoting DeSpain v. Uphoff, 264 F.3d 965, 974 (10th Cir. 2001)), even relatively short exposures to human waste have been found to violate the constitution. See DeSpain, 264 F.3d at 974 (“Exposure to human waste, like few other conditions of confinement, evokes both the health concerns emphasized in Farmer and the more general standards of dignity embodied in the Eighth Amendment.”
That analysis turns on the severity and duration of those conditions.See, e.g., Helling, 509 U.S. at 35 (holding that inmates should not be “expose[d] to [contaminants] that pose an unreasonable risk of serious damage to his future health”); Hubbard v. Taylor, 538 F.3d 229, 236 (3d Cir. 2008) (considering the degree of prison overcrowding that violates the Fourteenth Amendment and finding that pretrial detainees did not have a clearly-established right to avoid triple-celling or mattresses on the floor); Fontroy v. Owens, 150 F.3d 239, 244 (3d Cir. 1998) (considering deliberate indifference claim based on asbestos exposure in prison); Martin v. Gearhart, 712 F. App'x. 179, 187 (3d Cir. 2017) (finding that sustained exposure to human waste can state a claim for relief under § 1983 but that exposures of “limited severity and duration” do not violate the Constitution); Dixon v. Godinez, 114 F.3d 640, 644 (7th Cir. 1997) (explaining that the factors relevant to claims based on low cell temperature, are “the severity of the cold; its duration; whether the prisoner has alternative means to protect himself from the cold; the adequacy of such alternatives; as well as whether he must endure other uncomfortable conditions as well as cold”)
A plaintiff “need only show knowledge of and acquiescence in the retaliatory act to demonstrate involvement.” Martin v. Gearhart, 712 Fed.Appx. 179, 187 (3d Cir. 2017) (citing Rode v Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195, 1207 (3d Cir. 1988)). Thus, Mr. Thomas has sufficiently pled Dr. Matteo's direct involvement in the retaliation when Dr. Matteo allegedly acquiesced to or knew of Ms. Stickney changing Mr. Thomas's mental health record.
Martin v. Gearhart, 712 Fed.Appx. 179, 188 (3d Cir. 2017) (citing McKee v. Hart, 436 F.3d 165, 170 (3d Cir. 2006)). On its own, a mere transfer from Mr. Walker's cell on the J Block to the F Block would not constitute an adverse action.
In Robinson v. Superintendent, 831 F.3d 148, 153-54 (3d Cir. 2016), the Third Circuit similarly held that the exhaustion requirement is satisfied where prison officials fail to timely respond to an inmate's properly filed grievance. See also Martin v. Gearhart, 712 Fed.Appx. 179, 183-84 (3d Cir. 2017) (explaining same).
That analysis turns on the severity and duration of those conditions.See, e.g., Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 35 (1993) (holding that inmates should not be “expose[d] to [contaminants] that pose an unreasonable risk of serious damage to his future health”); Hubbard v. Taylor, 538 F.3d 229, 236 (3d Cir. 2008) (considering the degree of prison overcrowding that violates the Fourteenth Amendment and finding that pretrial detainees did not have a clearly-established right to avoid triple-celling or mattresses on the floor); Fontroy v. Owens, 150 F.3d 239, 244 (3d Cir. 1998) (considering deliberate indifference claim based on asbestos exposure in prison); Martin v. Gearhart, 712 F. App'x. 179, 187 (3d Cir. 2017) (finding that sustained exposure to human waste can state a claim for relief under § 1983 but that exposures of “limited severity and duration” do not violate the Constitution); Dixon v. Godinez, 114 F.3d 640, 644 (7th Cir. 1997) (explaining that the factors relevant to claims based on low cell temperature, are “the severity of the cold; its duration; whether the prisoner has alternative means to protect himself from the cold; the adequacy of such alternatives; as well as whether he must endure other uncomfortable conditions as well as cold”)
See, e.g., Mutschler v. Tritt, No. 20-2022, 2021 WL 5445810, at *3 (3d Cir. Nov. 22, 2021) (per curiam) (allegations of unsanitary conditions in prisoner's cell were sufficient to state a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim); see also Martin v. Gearhart, 712 Fed.Appx. 179, 187 (3d Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (noting that “exposure to human waste carries particular weight in the conditions calculus”) (quoting DeSpain v. Uphoff, 264 F.3d 965, 974 (10th Cir. 2001)); Carroll v. George W. Hill Corr. Facility, No. 22-1720, 2022 WL 17539212, at *10 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 8, 2022) (depriving water and access to fluids may in some circumstances demonstrate “deliberate indifference” to sustain a claim) (citing Collier v. Martinez, 474 Fed.Appx. 870, 874 (3d Cir. 2012) (per curiam)). Nonetheless, a plaintiff must allege facts about the duration and extent of the deprivation to establish how a basic need was not met, and must allege how he was harmed by the unsanitary conditions.
Plaintiff also complains about other conditions at MCCC, such as standing water/sewage in a communal urinal, a lack of “running showers,” a lack of coordinated laundry service, a lack of sufficient cleaning supplies, and a leaking roof. The Third Circuit has held that exposure to human waste can violate the Fourteenth Amendment, Martin v. Gearhart, 712 F. App'x. 179, 187 (3d Cir. 2017) (finding, however, that exposures of “limited severity and duration” do not violate the Constitution). Here, Plaintiff's allegations that there is standing human waste in the urinals appears to be of limited severity, and Plaintiff has not provided sufficient facts about the severity and duration of the other deprivations, such that the Court could find that these conditions collectively amount to punishment
. Tritt, No. 20-2022, 2021 WL 5445810, at *3 (3d Cir. Nov. 22, 2021) (allegations of unsanitary conditions in prisoner's cell were sufficient to state a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim); Conway v. Cty. of Camden, No. 169550, 2017 WL 3783263, at *2-3 (D.N.J. Aug. 31, 2017) (finding plaintiff sufficiently pled a plausible basis for a claim that he experienced unconstitutionally punitive conditions as a detainee where he alleged, inter alia, that he was housed in a two-person cell with three other people and required to sleep on the floor next to the toilet with only a thin mattress, facility had only one set of fingernail clippers for all inmates on the unit and plaintiff sustained a skin infection, mold caused plaintiff to sustain respiratory problems, there was a lack of hot water in the cells, plaintiff sustained insect bites, and was housed with inmates infected with M.R.S.A.); see also Martin v. Gearhart, 712 Fed.Appx. 179, 187 (3d Cir. 2017) (per curiam)
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit found that confinement in a dry cell “is unpleasant and often unsanitary” but will not violate the Eighth Amendment “so long as the conditions of that confinement are not foul or inhuman, and are supported by some penological justification.” Id., at 138-39 (citing Young, 960 F.2d at 364). See also, Martin v. Gearhart, 712 Fed.Appx. 179, 186 (3d Cir. 2017) (plaintiff “could not establish the objective element of his claim because the deprivation of running water for just over a day was insufficiently serious to establish an Eighth Amendment violation.”)