The prisoner's conviction

entitles the State to classify him
as a "criminal," and his incarcera-
tion deprives him of the freedom
"to be with family and friends
and to form the other enduring
attachments of normal life.
Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471,
482 (1972); see Meachum v. Fano,
427 U.S. 215, 224-225 (1976).
Prison brutality, as the Court of
Appeals observed in this case, is
"part of the total punishment to
which the individual is being sub-
jected for his crime and, as such,
is a proper subject for Eighth
Amendment scrutiny." 525 F.2d at
915. Even so, the protection
afforded by the Eighth Amendment
is limited. After incarceration,

only the " 'unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain, "Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. at 103, quoting Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. at 173, constitutes cruel and unusual punishment forbidden by the

Eighth Amendment.

430 U.S. at 669-70, 97 S. Ct. at 1411-12, 51 L. Ed. 2d at 729.

Wolfish v. Levi, 573 F.2d at 118 (2d Cir. 1978) described the limited responsibility of prison officials:

An institution's obligation under the eighth amendment is at an end if it furnishes sentenced prisoners with adequate food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety. The Constitution does not require that sentenced prisoners be provided with every amenity which one might find desirable.

573 F.2d at 125. In that case the court found that although the district court's judgment provided necessary remedies for unconstitutional conditions, it also wandered into administrative matters which the court of appeals described as trivial. 573 F.2d at 125-26.

The district court's application of the "legitimate penological purpose" test to determine whether the conditions of confinement violated the Eighth Amendment was disapproved on appeal in Nadeau v. Helgemoe, 561 F.2d 411 (1st Cir. 1977). The court stated: "We are not without sympathy for the approach pursued by the district court .. But we are constrained to say that at the present stage of development of the law relating to prisoners, the test used by the district court is not required by the Constitution." 561 F.2d at 415.

An attempt has been made in the following sections to categorize the conditions most frequently challenged by prisoners. However, in each particular case the combined effect of all of the conditions challenged must be considered. Smith v. Sullivan, 553 F.2d 373 (5th Cir. 1977) quoted from Gates v. Collier, 501 F.2d 1291, 1309 (5th Cir. 1974):

Each factor separately, i.e.,
overcrowding dormitory barracks,
lack of classification according
to severity of offense, untrain-
ed inmates with weapons, lack of
supervision by civilian guards,
absence of a procedure for con-
fiscation of weapons, may not
rise to constitutional dimen-
sions; however, the effect of
the totality of these circum-
stances is the infliction of
punishment on inmates violative
of the Eighth Amendment, as
determined by the trial court.

553 F.2d at 378. The court also quoted from Williams v. Edwards, 547 F.2d 1206, 1301 (5th Cir. 1977):

1.

Unsanitary Conditions: Lack of Sufficient
Heat, Clothing, Blankets, Mattresses, Water
Light, Toilet Facilities, Shower Privileges,
Articles of Hygiene, Ventilation, Privacy

McCray v. Burrell, 516 F.2d 357 (4th Cir. 1975), cert. dismissed, 423 U.S. 923, 96 S. Ct. 264, 46 L. Ed. 2d 249 (1976) reversed the district judge's dismissal of the action following a non-jury trial and held that the conditions of plaintiff's confinement in two different cells subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The court remanded for consideration of the personal liability, for money damages, of the prison guard and officer who were responsible for plaintiff's placement in the two cells. The court noted that plaintiff's actions evidencing mental derangement--screaming, tearing a locker off the cell wall and banging it against the wall, smearing feces over himself and the cell wall, and possibly starting a fire in his cell--justified his removal from the prison population until his condition could be evaluated. However, the conditions in the two isolation cells were so barbaric that unless medical help was forthcoming within a reasonable period of time, the conditions would constitute cruel and unusual punishment.

In

Plaintiff had been placed nude in both cells. the first cell his bed consisted of a concrete slab without blankets or other bedding. During the night a prison guard gave him a mattress and plaintiff testified he dug a channel in the cotton so he could sleep nestled in the mattress. He was disciplined for destroying the mattress. The cell contained a toilet and a sink; plaintiff was given no materials to clean himself or the cell, was fed in plastic cups, and was deprived of reading and writing materials. Plaintiff remained in this cell for about forty-eight hours. The court stated:

What is clear, however, is that if McCray's mental condition was reasonably believed to be so suspect as to justify the conditions we have described, then it was such as to warrant, if not the actual ministrations of professional personnel, an immediate effort to gain him prompt medical evaluation and necessary treat

ment.

516 F.2d at 368. The mental observation cell in which plaintiff was placed naked, for approximately fortyeight hours, had "no sink, and the only sanitary facility was an 'oriental toilet'--a hole in the floor, six to eight inches across, covered by a removable metal grate which was encrusted with the excrement of previous occupants. The 'toilet' flushed automatically once every three to five minutes. McCray was not permitted to bathe, shave or have or use articles of personal hygiene, including toilet paper. 516 F.2d at 367. He had no blanket or mattress and was not afforded reading or writing materials. The court stated: "[T]he record reveals that the conditions of confinement in the mental observation (M.0.) cell in which McCray was kept fall far short of the current standards of decency of present-day society The conditions of this confinement constitute a per se violation of the eighth amendment." 516 F.2d at 369.

La Reau v. MacDougall, 473 F.2d 974 (2d Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 878, 94 S. Ct. 49, 38 L. Ed. 2d 123 (1973) found that plaintiff's placement in a strip. cell for five days as a disciplinary measure after contraband materials were found in his cell constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff's cell had no windows. There was a 100 watt light outside the cell which shone through a hole at the rear of the cell and which could be turned on and off only by the guard. The light was turned on for plaintiff only at meal times and when he was allowed to write, and plaintiff was in almost total darkness and total silence for substantial periods of time. There was no sink, water fountain, or commode. The only facility for disposing of human waste was a Chinese toilet--a hole in the floor which was flushed manually from outside the cell. A prisoner in the strip cell received three meals a day, at least two glasses of water daily, a mattress between 3:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m., and blankets when required by the room temperature. He could have no reading materials, except a Bible, and had no opportunity to exercise. The court stated:

We hold the conditions to

which LaReau was subjected in the strip cell fall below the irreducible minimum of decency required by the Eighth Amendment. Enforced isolation and boredom are permissible methods of discipline, although they

might not remain so if extended over
a long period of time. But the con-
ditions here went beyond mere coerced
stagnation. We cannot approve of
threatening an inmate's sanity and
severing his contacts with reality
by placing him in a dark cell almost
continuously day and night. Nor can
we find any justification for deny-
ing a man the ability to maintain
his personal cleanliness. What is
most offensive to this Court was
the use of the "Chinese toilet"
Causing a man to live, eat and
perhaps sleep in close confines
with his own human waste is too
debasing and degrading to be per-
mitted. The indecent conditions
that existed in this Somers prison
strip cell seriously threatened
the physical and mental soundness
of its unfortunate occupant. In
order to preserve the human dignity
of inmates and the standards of
humanity embraced by our society,
we cannot sanction such punishment.

473 F.2d at 978.

117

Kirby v. Blackledge, 530 F.2d 583 (4th Cir. 1976) commented on similar conditions in another case:

The combination of conditions alleged by the prisoners and which, for the purposes of this decision, we must take as true, have the cumulative effect of being cruel and unusual punishment as well as deprivation of due process. Many of the circumstances taken alone

reach the level of cruel and unusual

117. See also Poindexter v. Woodson, 510 F.2d 464 (10th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 846, 96 S.Ct. 85, 46 L.Ed.2d 68 (1975); Ahrens v. Thomas, 434 F. Supp. 873 (W.D. Mo. 1977) (failure to comply with standards set by National Sheriff's Association is relevant and material to finding an Eighth Amendment violation).