Helling v. Kinney

Decision Date18 June 1993
Docket NumberNo. 91-1958,91-1958
Citation125 L.Ed.2d 22,113 S.Ct. 2475,509 U.S. 25
PartiesDonald L. HELLING, et al., Petitioners, v. William McKINNEY
CourtU.S. Supreme Court
Syllabus*

Respondent McKinney, a Nevada state prisoner, filed suit against petitioner prison officials, claiming that his involuntary exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) from his cellmate's and other inmates' cigarettes posed an unreasonable risk to his health, thus subjecting him to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. A federal magistrate granted petitioners' motion for a directed verdict, but the Court of Appeals reversed in part, holding that McKinney should have been permitted to prove that his ETS exposure was sufficient to constitute an unreasonable danger to his future health. It reaffirmed its decision after this Court remanded for further consideration in light of Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 2321, 115 L.Ed.2d 271, in which the Court held that Eighth Amendment claims arising from confinement conditions not formally imposed as a sentence for a crime require proof of a subjective component, and that where the claim alleges inhumane confinement conditions or failure to attend to a prisoner's medical needs, the standard for that state of mind is the "deliberate indifference" standard of Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251. The Court of Appeals held that Seiter's subjective component did not vitiate that court's determination that it would be cruel and unusual punishment to house a prisoner in an environment exposing him to ETS levels that pose an unreasonable risk of harming his health—the objective component of McKinney's claim.

Held:

1. It was not improper for the Court of Appeals to decide the question whether McKinney's claim could be based on possible future effects of ETS. From its examination of the record, the court was apparently of the view that the claimed entitlement to a smoke-free environment subsumed the claim that ETS exposure could endanger one's future, not just current, health. Pp. ____.

2. By alleging that petitioners have, with deliberate indifference, exposed him to ETS levels that pose an unreasonable risk to his future health, McKinney has stated an Eighth Amendment claim on which relief could be granted. An injunction cannot be denied to inmates who plainly prove an unsafe, life-threatening condition on the ground that nothing yet has happened to them. See Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 682. Thus, petitioners' central thesis that only deliberate indifference to inmates' current serious health problems is actionable is rejected. Since the Court cannot at this juncture rule that McKinney cannot possibly prove an Eighth Amendment violation based on ETS exposure, it also would be premature to base a reversal on the Federal Government's argument that the harm from ETS exposure is speculative, with no risk sufficiently grave to implicate a serious medical need, and that the exposure is not contrary to current standards of decency. On remand, the District Court must give McKinney the opportunity to prove his allegations, which will require that he establish both the subjective and objective elements necessary to prove an Eighth Amendment violation. With respect to the objective factor, he may have difficulty showing that he is being exposed to unreasonably high ETS levels, since he has been moved to a new prison and no longer has a cellmate who smokes, and since a new state prison policy restricts smoking to certain areas and makes reasonable efforts to respect nonsmokers' wishes with regard to double bunking. He must also show that the risk of which he complains is not one that today's society chooses to tolerate. The subjective factor, deliberate indifference, should be determined in light of the prison authorities' current attitudes and conduct, which, as evidenced by the new smoking policy, may have changed considerably since the Court of Appeals' judgment. The inquiry into this factor also would be an appropriate vehicle to consider arguments regarding the realities of prison administration. Pp. ____.

959 F.2d 853 (CA 9 1992), affirmed and remanded.

WHITE, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which REHNQUIST, C.J., and BLACKMUN, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, KENNEDY, and SOUTER, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA, J., joined.

Frankie Sue Del Papa, Carson City, NV, for petitioners.

John J. Roberts, Jr., for U.S. as amicus curiae by special leave of the Court.

Cornish F. Hitchcock, Washington, DC, for respondent.

Justice WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case requires us to decide whether the health risk posed by involuntary exposure of a prison inmate to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) can form the basis of a claim for relief under the Eighth Amendment.

I

Respondent is serving a sentence of imprisonment in the Nevada prison system. At the time that this case arose, respondent was an inmate in the Nevada State Prison in Carson City, Nevada. Respondent filed a pro se civil rights complaint in United States District Court under Rev.Stat. § 1979, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, naming as defendants the director of the prison, the warden, the associate warden, a unit counselor, and the manager of the prison store. The complaint, dated December 18, 1986, alleged that respondent was assigned to a cell with another inmate who smoked five packs of cigarettes a day. App. 6. The complaint also stated that cigarettes were sold to inmates without properly informing of the health hazards a nonsmoking inmate would encounter by sharing a room with an inmate who smoked, Id., at 7-8, and that certain cigarettes burned continuously, releasing some type of chemical, Id., at 9. Respondent complained of certain health problems allegedly caused by exposure to cigarette smoke. Respondent sought injunctive relief and damages for, inter alia, subjecting him to cruel and unusual punishment by jeopardizing his health. Id., at 14.

The parties consented to a jury trial before a magistrate. The magistrate viewed respondent's suit as presenting two issues of law: (1) whether respondent had a constitutional right to be housed in a smoke-free environment, and (2) whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to respondent's serious medical needs. App. to Pet. for Cert. D2-D3. The magistrate, after citing applicable authority, concluded that respondent had no constitutional right to be free from cigarette smoke: while "society may be moving toward an opinion as to the propriety of non-smoking and a smoke-free environment," society cannot yet completely agree "on the resolution of these issues." Id., at D3, D6. The magistrate found that respondent nonetheless could state a claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs if he could prove the underlying facts, but held that respondent had failed to present evidence showing either medical problems that were traceable to cigarette smoke or deliberate indifference to them. Id., at D6-D10. The magistrate therefore granted petitioners' motion for a directed verdict and granted judgment for the defendants. Id., at D10.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the magistrate's grant of a directed verdict on the issue of deliberate indifference to respondent's immediate medical symptoms, McKinney v. Anderson, 924 F.2d 1500, 1512 (CA9 1991). The Court of Appeals also held that the defendants were immune from liability for damages since there was at the time no clearly established law imposing liability for exposing prisoners to ETS.* Although it agreed that respondent did not have a constitutional right to a smoke-free prison environment, the court held that respondent had stated a valid cause of action under the Eighth Amendment by alleging that he had been involuntarily exposed to levels of ETS that posed an unreasonable risk of harm to his future health. Id., at 1509. In support of this judgment, the court noticed scientific opinion supporting respondent's claim that sufficient exposure to ETS could endanger one's health. Id., at 1505-1507. The court also concluded that society's attitude had evolved to the point that involuntary exposure to unreasonably dangerous levels of ETS violated current standards of decency. Id., at 1508. The court therefore held that the magistrate erred by directing a verdict without permitting respondent to prove that his exposure to ETS was sufficient to constitute an unreasonable danger to his future health.

Petitioners sought review in this Court. In the meantime, this Court had decided Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 2321, 115 L.Ed.2d 271 (1991), which held that, while the Eighth Amendment applies to conditions of confinement that are not formally imposed as a sentence for a crime, such claims require proof of a subjective component, and that where the claim alleges inhumane conditions of confinement or failure to attend to a prisoner's medical needs, the standard for that state of mind is the "deliberate indifference" standard of Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976). We granted certiorari in this case, vacated the judgment below, and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for further consideration in light of Seiter. 502 U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 2321, 115 L.Ed.2d 271 (1991).

On remand, the Court of Appeals noted that Seiter added an additional subjective element that respondent had to prove to make out an Eighth Amendment claim, but did not vitiate its determination that it would be cruel and unusual punishment to house a prisoner in an environment exposing him to levels of ETS that pose an unreasonable risk of harming his health—the objective component of respondent's Eighth Amendment claim. McKinney v. Anderson, 959 F.2d 853, 854 (1992). The Court of Appeals therefore reinstated its previous judgment and remanded for proceedings consistent with its prior opinion and with Seiter. Ibid.

Petitioners again sought...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6385 cases
  • Adkins v. Kernan
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • 24 June 2019
    ...... under the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual. punishment. See Helling v. McKinney , 509 U.S. 25, 31. (1993); Farmer v. Brennan , 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). The Eighth Amendment “. . . embodies broad and. ......
  • Buckley v. Alameida
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • 14 December 2011
    ...of proof at trial." Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322. Plaintiff has the burden of showing that Defendants violated his rights. See Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 35 (1993); Thomas v. Ponder, 611 F.3d 1144, 1150-51 (9th Cir. 2010). As discussed above, Plaintiff failed to make such a showing on th......
  • Sorenson v. Minn. Dep't of Human Servs.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota
    • 31 July 2014
    ..."because it constitutes the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain contrary to contemporary standards of decency." Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 32 (1993) (quotations and citations omitted); see also Gregoire v. Class, 236 F.3d 413, 417 (8th Cir. 2000) ("It is well established that t......
  • Richards v. Snyder, Case No. 1:14-cv-84
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan
    • 12 June 2015
    ...(6th Cir. 2010) (citing Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834 (applying deliberate indifference standard to medical claims); see also Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 35 (1993) (applying deliberate indifference standard to conditions of confinement claims)). In Rhodes, 452 U.S. 337, the Supreme Court he......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
19 books & journal articles
  • LIVING FREELY BEHIND BARS: REFRAMING THE DUE PROCESS RIGHTS OF TRANSGENDER PRISONERS.
    • United States
    • Columbia Journal of Gender and Law Vol. 40 No. 3, June 2021
    • 22 June 2021
    ...Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994); Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1,4 (1992). (71) Peek, supra note 33, at 1231. (72) Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 35 (73) Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976). (74) Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834 (quoting Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991)); see also H......
  • HELL AND HIGH WATER: HOW CLIMATE CHANGE CAN HARM PRISON RESIDENTS AND JAIL RESIDENTS, AND WHY COVID-19 CONDITIONS LITIGATION SUGGESTS MOST FEDERAL COURTS WILL WAIT-AND-SEE WHEN ASKED TO INTERVENE.
    • United States
    • Fordham Urban Law Journal Vol. 49 No. 2, February 2022
    • 1 February 2022
    ...prison residents are prescribed to treat these conditions compromise their body's ability to handle heat). (62.) Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 33 (1993) (providing that "Courts of Appeals have plainly recognized that a remedy for unsafe conditions need not await a tragic (63.) See U.S. ......
  • Prisoners' Rights
    • United States
    • Georgetown Law Journal No. 110-Annual Review, August 2022
    • 1 August 2022
    ...L. No. 104-134, § 802(b)(1), 110 Stat. 1321-70. 3124. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104-06 (1976); see also Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 32, 35-36 (1993) (deliberate indifference claim where prisoner exposed to unreasonable risks of serious damage to future health); Erickson v. P......
  • A Needle in the Haystack: Finding a Solution to Ohio's Lethal Injection Problems
    • United States
    • Capital University Law Review No. 38-3, May 2010
    • 1 May 2010
    ...law standard for subjective recklessness. 54 Therefore, to grant injunctive relief to 43 Baze v. Rees, 128 S. Ct. 1520, 1530 (2008). 44 509 U.S. 25 (1993). 45 Helling , 509 U.S. at 32 (1993) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976)). 46 Id. at 34–35. 47 Id. at 28. 48 Id. at 36. 4......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT