White v. Nix, 92-3669

Decision Date07 October 1993
Docket NumberNo. 92-3669,92-3669
Citation7 F.3d 120
PartiesSherman WHITE, Appellant, v. Crispus NIX; John Emmett; Bobby Washington; Mike Cutler; Willits Birdsell, Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Jeffrey P. Lipman, Urbandale, IA, for appellant.

Suzie A. Berregaard Thomas, Asst. Atty. Gen., Des Moines, IA, for appellees.

Before JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge, ROSS, Senior Circuit Judge, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judge.

ROSS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Sherman White, an Iowa penitentiary inmate, appeals from the district court's judgment denying him relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 805 F.Supp. 721. We affirm.

White alleges, first, that various prison officials (defendants) violated his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment by his placement and retention in a screened prison cell and, second, that his continued housing in the screened cell violated his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. 1

White was confined in the screened cell following an altercation with another inmate and a subsequent dispute with a correctional officer on December 24, 1990. White was transferred from a general population cellhouse to cell I-1 of cellhouse 319, which is a lock-up cellhouse where inmates are housed pending investigations, during summary segregation, or while serving time for disciplinary infractions. White was issued a disciplinary notice on December 24, 1990, the same day he was placed in summary segregation.

On December 28, 1990, White was found guilty by the disciplinary committee of violating institutional rules as a result of his assaultive conduct. As punishment, he was given ten days of disciplinary detention and fifteen days of cell restrictions, to be served in a maximum security cellhouse. White filed an appeal of the disciplinary decision on December 28, 1990, which was denied on January 2, 1991.

On January 2, 1991, White was seen by the classification review committee, and for a second time requested to be removed from the screened cell. Defendant Washington informed White that he would attempt to get him transferred that day. White was transferred from cell I-1 to cell P-3, an open cell, on January 4, 1991. White remained in cell I-1 for a total of eleven days.

White contends the conditions he endured while in cell I-1 were so unsanitary as to constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. All the cells in cellhouse 319 are equipped with a toilet, a sink with hot and cold water, a bed and table, and each cell is wired for cable television. Unlike an open cell, the furniture in a screened cell is bolted to the floor and a screened wire mesh covers the bars of the cell. The screened cells are used to house inmates who present special security problems or who are thought to be suicidal. Following the trial, the magistrate judge 2 found that when a cell is vacated, prison personnel sanitize the mattress and pillow with bleach and remain responsible for maintaining the cleanliness of the outside of the cell. However, while housed in screened cells, inmates are responsible for cleaning the inside of the cells and are provided with cleaning supplies in order to do so. The magistrate judge concluded that the condition of White's cell was not so unsanitary as to constitute a possible health hazard and found that, although the wire mesh of the cell did cut down on ventilation, the cell was not covered with a mixture of dried...

To continue reading

Request your trial
80 cases
  • White v. Crow Ghost
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of North Dakota
    • October 11, 2006
    ...was found not to rise to the level of a constitutional violation in Smith v. Copeland, 87 F.3d 265, 268 (8th Cir.1996). In White v. Nix, 7 F.3d 120, 121 (8th Cir.1993), no constitutional violation was found to exist when a pretrial detainee was confined in an unsanitary cell for eleven days......
  • Perkins v. Bailey
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan
    • March 9, 2021
    ...and laundry did not result in serious pain or offend contemporary standards of decency under the Eighth Amendment); White v. Nix, 7 F.3d 120, 121 (8th Cir. 1993) (eleven-day stay in unsanitary cell not unconstitutional because of relative brevity of stay and availability of cleaning supplie......
  • Gaston v. Coughlin
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of New York
    • August 12, 1994
    ...are not cruel and unusual where the inmate was subjected to the condition only for a short period of time. See, e.g., White v. Nix, 7 F.3d 120, 121 (8th Cir.1993) (no Eighth Amendment violation where prisoner was confined to allegedly unsanitary cell for eleven days, particularly where clea......
  • Kemp v. Black Hawk Cnty. Jail
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • February 13, 2017
    ...conditions are not cruel and unusual because the inmate was subjected to the condition for only a short period of time); White v. Nix, 7 F.3d 120, 121 (8th Cir. 1993) (holding no Eighth Amendment violation where prisoner was confined to unsanitary cell for 11 days and noting that cleaning s......
  • 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