Wilson v. Seiter
- Decided
- June 17, 1991
- Docket
- 89-7376
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 6,530 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that intent is an essential element of an Eighth Amendment violation over dissenters’ protests that “the majority’s intent requirement ... will prove impossible to apply” — Phillip Wallace v. Merle Dean Robinson (1991)
- holding that the “deliberate indifference” standard applies equally to “inhumane conditions of confinement” and inadequate medical care — Kane v. Winn (2004)
- holding that the “deliberate indifference” standard of Estelle v. Gamble applies to prisoner challenges of nonmedical conditions of confinement — Kis v. County of Schuylkill (1994)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
[*296] Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents ing that conditions of confinement constitute cruel and unusual punishment must show a culpable state of mind on the part of prison officials, and, if so, what state of mind is required.
Petitioner Pearly L. Wilson a Hocking Correctional Facility (HCF) in Nelsonville, Ohio. Alleging that a number of the conditions of his confinement constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, he brought this action under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 against respondents Richard P. Seiter, then Director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, and Carl Humphreys, then warden of HCF. The complaint alleged overcrowding, excessive noise, insufficient locker storage space, inadequate heating and cooling, improper ventilation, unclean and inadequate restrooms, unsanitary dining facilities and food preparation, and housing with mentally and physically ill inmates. Petitioner sought declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as $900,000 in compensatory and punitive damages. App. 2-9, 53-54, 62-63.
Statutes cited
Cite this
Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294 (1991)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.