Walker v. Schult
- Decided
- May 23, 2013
- Docket
- Docket 12-1806-cv
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 3,078 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- recognizing that the objective standard requires conditions which “either alone or in combination, pose an unreasonable risk of serious damage to his health.” — Roseboro v. Faucher (2024)
- holding that unsanitary cell conditions, including urine and feces on the floor, can constitute cruel and unusual punishment — Prince v. Crabtree (2024)
- concluding that an inmate plausibly alleged an Eighth Amendment violation for sleep deprivation caused by his five cellmates making constant and loud noise inside the cell all night — Lowther v. Harrington (2020)
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
CHIN, Circuit Judge:
Plaintiff-appellant Ellis Walker brought this action below pro se, alleging that the conditions of his confinement in the Federal Correctional Institution in Ray Brook, New York (“FCI Ray Brook”) amounted to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Kahn, J.) granted defendants-appellees’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Walker appeals.
We conclude that Walker’s complaint plausibly alleged violations of his constitutional rights, except as to two defendants. We therefore affirm in part and vacate in part and remand for further proceedings.
Statutes cited
Cite this
Walker v. Schult, 717 F.3d 119 (2013)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.