affirming injunction against prison officials from refusing to mail communications by inmate to any court, public official or agency, or lawyer with respect *79 to inmate’s conviction or any complaint concerning “administration of prison” where incarcerated
How later courts described this case
- affirming injunction against prison officials from refusing to mail communications by inmate to any court, public official or agency, or lawyer with respect *79 to inmate’s conviction or any complaint concerning “administration of prison” where incarcerated
- finding diets of 2,800 to 3,300 5 calories per day constitutionally adequate
- upholding finding of liability for sending inmate to segregated housing in retaliation, in part, for inmate’s past litigation against prison officials and inmate’s threat to sue over censorship of his correspondence
- noting that availability of exercise is an important consideration in determining whether conditions of segregated confinement violate the Eighth Amendment
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled on other grounds by Ronald Davidson v. Charles J. Scully, Superintendent, and Edward Bollinger, Correction Officer, 114 F.3d 12 (1997)
See, e.g., Green v. Ferrell, 801 F.2d 765, 770-71 (5th Cir.1986) (finding two meals a day sufficient if nutritionally and calorically adequate); see also Sostre v. McGinnis, 442 F.2d 178, 186, 193-94 (2d Cir.1971) (finding diets of 2,800 to 3,300 calories per day constitutionally adequate), overruled on other grounds in Davidson v. Scully, 114 F.3d 12 (2d Cir.1997); Cunningham v. Jones, 667 F.2d 565, 566 (6th Cir.198…
Abrogated on other grounds by Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (1974)
442 F.2d 178, 189 (2d Cir.1971) (en banc), abrogated on other grounds by Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 94 S.Ct. 1800, 40 L.Ed.2d 224 (1974), and
The opinion
J. JOSEPH SMITH, Circuit Judge
(concurring in part and dissenting in part):
I agree with most of Judge Kaufman’s thoughtful and thorough opinion, but disagree in two respects and therefore dissent in part.
I agree with Judge Feinberg that the district court’s finding that Sostre’s segregation for more than one year was cruel and unusual punishment is supported by the record. Punishment of a nature found likely to bring about an inmate’s insanity should be proscribed whether or not it is shown to have succeeded in doing so in the particular case, and whether or not it could be alleviated by “submission.”
This requires also, it seems to me, that recovery against McGinnis be upheld. The court found (and Judge Kaufman’s opinion emphasizes, page 182 and page 189) that McGinnis had been fully informed as to Sostre’s long segregation, a finding supported by the Fol-lette deposition testimony and exhibits, and had done nothing to terminate it although empowered to do so, and although he knew Follette had kept men in segregation for periods as long as four and five years in the past. Follette was liable in damages to Sostre for violation of his civil rights, and I would rule that McGinnis was properly held also liable. I would not, however, assess *207 exemplary in addition to compensatory damages against McGinnis under these circumstances.