Minns v. Simpson, Civ. A. No. 75-0006.

• Decision Date: 24 March 1975
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 75-0006.
• Citation: 391 F. Supp. 1156
• Parties: Ernest George MINNS, #99730 Harrisonburg, Virginia Correctional Unit # 8, Plaintiff, v. D. W. SIMPSON, Individually and in his official capacity as Superintendent of Harrisonburg Correctional Unit # 8, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia

391 F. Supp. 1156

Ernest George MINNS, #99730 Harrisonburg, Virginia Correctional Unit # 8, Plaintiff, v. D. W. SIMPSON, Individually and in his official capacity as Superintendent of Harrisonburg Correctional Unit # 8, Defendant.

Civ. A. No. 75-0006.

United States District Court, W. D. Virginia, Harrisonburg Division.

March 24, 1975.

Burnett Miller, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., Richmond, Va., for respondent.

OPINION AND JUDGMENT

DALTON, District Judge.

This case involves the adequacy of the isolation facilities of the Harrisonburg Correctional Unit #8. The petitioner, Ernest George Minns, is an inmate at Unit #8 and was confined in isolation there from January 14, 1975, through January 28, 1975, for punitive reasons. Petitioner has made several allegations challenging specifically his fifteen day isolation period. He complains (1) that his cell was too cold; (2) that the reading light was inadequate; (3) that he was not provided with a chair; (4) that he was not provided with warm water; and, (5) that he was denied his "right" to smoke.

Petitioner was allowed to proceed with this pro se complaint in forma pauperis by order of this court dated January 20, 1975. The allegations are made pursuant to Title 42, U.S.C. § 1983, and jurisdiction vests in this court pursuant to Title 28, U.S.C. § 1343(3) and (4).

Respondent, D. W. Simpson, has filed a motion for summary judgment attaching his own affidavit, an affidavit by Sergeant Robert F. Pratt, a correctional officer at Unit #8, a copy of Department of Corrections Guideline No. 800, and copies of the solitary inspection sheet used to monitor an inmate's period in isolation.

Respondent states in his affidavit petitioner was placed in isolation on January 14, 1975, and that the temperature in isolation cell #1 was in the low sixties and upper fifties on January 15, 1975. The cause of this low temperature is unclear; either a maintenance repair or an open window. The petitioner was moved the next day to isolation cell #2 and the isolation logbook indicates that the temperature in cell #2 was in the middle seventies through the duration of petitioner's isolation period. Respondent states there is no electrical socket in the isolation cells for security reasons, but that there is a light in the hallway immediately adjacent to the cells, which provides adequate light for reading. Respondent also states that petitioner was not given a chair in his isolation cell because his bed remained in the cell at all...