University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Wilson v. Seiter PC-OH-0017
Docket / Court 86-1046 ( S.D. Ohio )
State/Territory Ohio
Case Type(s) Prison Conditions
Case Summary
In 1986, inmates of the Hocking Correctional Facility filed a Section 1983 suit, pro se, in the Southern District of Ohio against officials of the facility. Plaintiffs claimed violations of the Eighth Amendment, specifically alleging overcrowding, excessive noise, inadequate storage, inadequate ... read more >
In 1986, inmates of the Hocking Correctional Facility filed a Section 1983 suit, pro se, in the Southern District of Ohio against officials of the facility. Plaintiffs claimed violations of the Eighth Amendment, specifically alleging overcrowding, excessive noise, inadequate storage, inadequate heating and cooling, unclean lavatories, improper classification of prisoners, and unsanitary eating conditions. In 1991 the ACLU National Prison Project agreed to represent plaintiff.

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment and the district court found in favor of the defendants. Plaintiffs appealed and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Sixth Circuit (Judge James Harvey) held that appellants' claims of constitutional violations did not arise from specific conditions previously found to violate the Eighth Amendment and that the appellants failed to establish that prison conditions were a product of ""obduracy and wantonness and not mere negligence."" Wilson v. Seiter, 893 F.2d 861 (6th Cir. 1990).

Plaintiffs' petition for writ of certiorari was granted. Wilson v. Seiter, 498 U.S. 808 (1990). The Supreme Court vacated and remanded. Writing for the majority, Justice Scalia held that Eighth Amendment prison claims require an objective and subjective component. Plaintiffs must show that the conditions are objectively cruel and unusual and that they are the result of ""deliberate indifference"" by prison officials. The majority also held that the courts should not question the constitutionality of all conditions in their ""totality"" unless they ""have a mutually enforcing effect that produces the deprivation of a single, identifiable human need."" Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294 (1991).

After reconsideration applying the ""deliberate indifference"" standard, the District Court (Judge James L. Graham) granted defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case in a March 1992 opinion and order. Plaintiffs appealed, but the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Eoghan Keenan - 07/15/2005


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Crowding
Crowding / caseload
General
Classification / placement
Food service / nutrition / hydration
Sanitation / living conditions
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Type of Facility
Government-run
Causes of Action 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983
Defendant(s) Hocking Correctional Facility
Plaintiff Description Inmates alleging cruel and unusual punishments
Indexed Lawyer Organizations None on record
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief None
Source of Relief Litigation
Form of Settlement None on record
Order Duration 1992 - n/a
Case Closing Year 1992
Case Ongoing No
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
Case Studies Civil Rights Injunctions Over Time: A Case Study of Jail and Prison Court Orders
N.Y.U. Law Review
By: Margo Schlanger (Washington University)
Citation: 81 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 550 (2006)
[ Detail ] [ PDF ] [ External Link ]

  Judicial Policy Making and the Modern State: How the Courts Reformed America's Prisons
By: Malcolm M. Feeley & Edward Rubin (UC Berkeley Boalt Hall School of Law & Vanderbilt School of Law Faculty)
Citation: (1998)
[ Detail ]

Links The Oyer Project, Wilson v Seiter, 501 U.S. 294 (1991)
www.oyez.org
Posted: Jun. 17, 1991
By: Oyez Project (IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

Docket(s)
86-1046 (S.D. Ohio) 12/23/1993
PC-OH-0017-9000.pdf | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Reported Opinion 01/16/1990 (893 F.2d 861)
PC-OH-0017-0001.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Google Scholar
Memorandum Decision 10/01/1990 (498 U.S. 808)
PC-OH-0017-0004.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Westlaw
Memorandum Decision 12/10/1990 (498 U.S. 1010)
PC-OH-0017-0005.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Westlaw
Reported Opinion 06/17/1991 (501 U.S. 294)
PC-OH-0017-0003.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Westlaw
Order 07/29/1991 (940 F.2d 664)
PC-OH-0017-0002.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Judges Abel, Mark R. (S.D. Ohio) [Magistrate]
PC-OH-0017-9000
Blackmun, Harry Andrew (Eighth Circuit, SCOTUS)
PC-OH-0017-0003
Graham, James L. (S.D. Ohio)
PC-OH-0017-9000
Harvey, James (E.D. Mich.)
PC-OH-0017-0001 | PC-OH-0017-0002
Kennedy, Anthony McLeod (Ninth Circuit, SCOTUS)
PC-OH-0017-0003
Krupansky, Robert B. (Sixth Circuit, N.D. Ohio)
PC-OH-0017-0001 | PC-OH-0017-0002
Marshall, Thurgood (Second Circuit, SCOTUS)
PC-OH-0017-0003
O'Connor, Sandra Day (SCOTUS)
PC-OH-0017-0003
Rehnquist, William Hubbs (SCOTUS)
PC-OH-0017-0003
Scalia, Antonin (D.C. Circuit, SCOTUS)
PC-OH-0017-0003
Souter, David Hackett (First Circuit, SCOTUS)
PC-OH-0017-0003
Stevens, John Paul (Seventh Circuit, SCOTUS)
PC-OH-0017-0003
Wellford, Harry Walker (Sixth Circuit, W.D. Tenn.)
PC-OH-0017-0001 | PC-OH-0017-0002
White, Byron Raymond (SCOTUS)
PC-OH-0017-0003
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Alexander, Elizabeth R. (District of Columbia)
PC-OH-0017-0003 | PC-OH-0017-9000
Chesley, Stanley Morris (Ohio)
PC-OH-0017-0001
Defendant's Lawyers Eppler, Rita S. (Ohio)
PC-OH-0017-0003
Schoch, Frederick C. (Ohio)
PC-OH-0017-0001
Other Lawyers Bryson, William Curtis (District of Columbia)
PC-OH-0017-0003

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -