punishment, such as the Chinese cell, inadequate exercise and medical treatment, inadequate heating and ventilation, and lack of access to the prison library. 53 F.2d at 587. However, Lovern v. Cox, 374 F. Supp. 32, 35 (W.D. Va. 1974) held that "[T]he contentions regarding unsanitary maintenance and upkeep do not constitute conditions so hazardous to life, health or safety as to warrant the intervention of a federal court. Bennett v. Passic, 545 F.2d 1260 (10th Cir. 1976) found that plaintiff's allegation that he was placed in the "drunk tank," when in an intoxicated condition, for approximately three hours, failed to state a cause of action and that the complaint was properly dismissed as frivolous. The complaint alleged that "[T]he drunk tank cell consistently smells of vomit and urine and it is maintained in such filthy and unsanitary conditions so as to create a shocking and debased atmosphere and set of surroundings." 545 F.2d at 1262. Sostre v. McGinnis, 442 F.2d 178 (2d Cir. 1971) 118 reversed the district judge who had granted the plaintiff punitive and compensatory damages, in addition to injunctive relief. The court found that the plaintiff was not subjected to cruel and unusual punishment by his confinement in punitive segregation for twelve months and eight days. Plaintiff remained in his cell at all times except for a brief period once each week when he was permitted to shave and shower. He was permitted one hour of exercise each day and his cell included a toilet and a face bowl with running cold water, soap, and a towel. He could not buy or receive books, magazines, or newspapers, and his access to the prison's library collection was limited to approximately thirtyfive volumes chosen by the prison guards. Light was adequate for reading. In finding that plaintiff's condition of confinement did not violate the Eighth Amendment, the court stated: 118. Cert. denied sub nom. Sostre v. Oswald, 404 U.S. 1049, 92 S.Ct. 719, 30 L.Ed.2d 740, and Oswald v. Sostre, 405 U.S. 978, 92 S.Ct. 1190, 31 L.Ed.2d 254 (1972). In arriving at this conclusion, we have considered Sostre's diet, the availability in his cell of at least rudimentary implements of personal hygiene, the opportunity for exercise and participation in group therapy, the provision of at least some general reading matter from the prison library and of unlimited numbers of law books, and the constant possibility of communication with other segregated prisoners. These factors in combination raised the quality of Sostre's segregated environment several notches above those truly barbarous and inhumane conditions heretofore condemned by ourselves and by other courts as "cruel and unusual. 442 F.2d at 193. The plaintiff in Sweet v. South Carolina Dept. of Corrections, 529 F.2d 854 (4th Cir. 1975) was asking for, inter alia, at least three showers a week. The court directed the district court to determine whether plaintiff's health was adversely affected by his lack of showers and whether it was practical for the prison to permit him to take more showers. James v. Wallace, 406 F.Supp. 318 (M. D. Ala. 1976) mandated that each prisoner be given adequate articles of hygiene, towels, bed linen, household cleaning supplies, heat, light, and ventilation, a bed off the floor, a clean mattress, blankets, access to one toilet per fifteen inmates, one shower per twenty inmates, and one lavatory per ten inmates. The district court's order requiring that pretrial detainees be given clean clothing, bed linen and towels at least once a week was affirmed in Campbell v. McGruder, 580 F.2d 521, 544 (D.C. Cir. 1978). However, the court of appeals found that prison officials should not be required to provide clean underwear as long as the inmates had access to hot water and detergent. The district court improperly dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, a complaint which complained of overcrowded cell conditions, denial of showers and basic sanitary items, denial of miscellaneous items such as shoes and tobacco, and a diet consisting entirely of cold and possibly inadequate food. Shapley v. Wolff, 568 F.2d 1310 (9th Cir. 1978). Smith v. Sullivan, 553 F.2d 373 (5th Cir. 1977) Allegations of suffocating conditions resulting from inadequate ventilation state a cause of action. Martinez v. Chavez, 574 F.2d 1043 (10th Cir. 1978). Forts v. Ward, 566 F.2d 849 (2d Cir. 1977) reversed the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction, enjoining state and union officials from assigning male correction officers to parts of the housing and hospital units of a women's prison and remanded for full evidentiary hearing. The plaintiffs alleged that their privacy rights were being violated by male guards who would observe them when they were on the toilet, as they were drying themselves after showering, and upon being awakened at 6:30 a.m. The defendants argued that the inmates could prevent such invasions of privacy by requesting that their cell doors be closed while they attended to their personal needs and by dressing and drying themselves in the curtained shower stalls. The court found that the briefs and affidavits presented disputed issues of fact and a hearing was required. 2. Inadequate Meals Cunningham v. Jones, 567 F.2d 653 (6th Cir. 1977) remanded for determination of whether the one meal a day the plaintiff was receiving was sufficient to maintain normal health. The plaintiff was placed in solitary confinement after allegedly attempting a jailbreak and stabbing a deputy jailer. He alleged that he was completely deprived of food for the first four days and that for the next sixteen days he received only one full meal, consisting of watery soup or boiled potatoes, every third day. The district judge found that he had been allowed one meal a day for eleven days. However, there was conflict as to whether he received any food during the preceeding four days. The limited diet was imposed as punishment for the attempted jailbreak. The district court had found: Under all the circumstances, the 567 F.2d at 654. On appeal, the court recognized that a number of courts had held that deliberate and unnecessary withholding of food essential to normal health could violate the Eighth Amendment and quoted from Finney v. Arkansas Board of Correction, 505 F.2d 194 (8th Cir. 1974): "There exists a fundamental difference between depriving a prisoner of privileges he may enjoy and depriving him of the basic necessities of human existance. We think this is the minimal line separating cruel and unusual punishment from conduct that is not." 567 F.2d at 656. The court also quoted from another case, Landman v. Royster, 333 F.Supp. 621, 647 (E.D. Va. 1971), which prohibited a bread and water diet: The practice is therefore both generally disapproved and obsolescent even within this penal system. It is not seriously defended as essential to security. It amounts therefore to an unnecessary infliction of pain. Furthermore, as a technique designed to break necessities, to the end that his The of respect for human dignity. Court has no difficulty in determining that it is a violation of the eighth amendment. 567 F.2d at 657. The Cunningham court discussed the burden of proof as follows: The prisoners, of course, could have no access to proofs as to calorie count in the meals actually furnished. Once the evidence established a substantial deprivation of jail food normally served (here a deprivation of two meals a day), the burden of proof as to the adequacy of the one meal actually furnished to maintain normal health must fall upon Defendants since such knowledge is peculiarly within their possession What we cannot ascertain from the record currently presented and the current findings of fact of the District Judge is whether the one meal actually provided the plaintiff was sufficient to maintain normal health. 567 F.2d at 660. The court clarified its remarks by stating: [W]e should make clear what this |