holding that an injunction Nos. 19-1145, 19-1375 & 19-1978 17 requiring air conditioning to decrease prison cell tempera- ture violated the PLRA because the “plaintiffs are not enti- tled to the most effective available remedy; they are entitled to a remedy that eliminates the constitutional injury” (citing Westefer, 682 F.3d at 683–84)
How later courts described this case
- holding that an injunction Nos. 19-1145, 19-1375 & 19-1978 17 requiring air conditioning to decrease prison cell tempera- ture violated the PLRA because the “plaintiffs are not enti- tled to the most effective available remedy; they are entitled to a remedy that eliminates the constitutional injury” (citing Westefer, 682 F.3d at 683–84)
- concluding that officials’ failure to act despite their awareness of extremely high indoor temperatures, review of records listing those prisoners that were susceptible to heat, and articulated concern about the high temperatures was sufficient to show deliberate indifference
- holding that even if thermoregulation is a major bodily function, the plaintiffs were not disabled because there was no evidence that they “ever experienced difficulty in thermoregulating”
- affirming “district court’s conclusion that housing these prisoners in very hot cells without sufficient access to heat-relief measures, while knowing that each suffers from conditions that render him extremely vulnerable to serious heat-related injury, violates the Eighth Amendment”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
REAVLEY, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I agree with almost all of the opinion, but I would affirm the injunction which in principal only orders the heat index in the Angola death row tiers to be maintained below 88 degrees.