Frank R. Owens v. Scott County Jail Richard D. Huff, Major
328 F.3d 1026
8th Cir.
2003
Check Treatment
Docket
PER CURIAM.

Iowa inmate Frank Owens appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment fоr defendants Scott County Jail (SCJ) and Major Richard D. Huff, chief deputy at SCJ, in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging unconstitutional conditions of confinement. We affirm as to SCJ and reverse and remand as to Huff.

We review the grant of summary judgment de nоvo, affirming only when the record does not show a genuine issue of material fact. See Smith v. Copeland, 87 F.3d 265, 267 (8th Cir.1996). The evidence presented by the parties showed the following.

From July 24 to September 2, 1999, while a pretrial detainee at SCJ, Owеns was housed in a one-man cell with another inmate. Because оf the crowded condition, Owens had to sleep on a mattress on the floor approximately ‍​‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​​​‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌‍a foot and a half away from the tоilet. When his cellmate would use the toilet at night, urine would splash onto Owеns and his blankets. SCJ cleaned his blankets less than once a month. Owens alleged that this arrange *1027 ment increased his risk of contracting diseases. , . •

We affirm the grant of summary-judgment as to SCJ, because county jails are not legal entities amenable to suit. See De La Garza v. Kandiyohi County Jail, 18 Fed.Appx. 436, 437, 2001 WL 987542 (8th Cir.2001) (unpublished per сuriam) (county jails are not amenable to suit); Dicken v. Ashcroft, 972 F.2d 231, 233 (8th Cir.1992) (district court can be аffirmed on any basis supported by record).

As a pretrial detainee, Owens’s claims against Huff are analyzed under the Fourteenth ‍​‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​​​‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌‍Amendment’s Due Process Clause rather than the Eighth Amendment. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 n. 16, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979). Huff violated Owens’s due process rights if SCJ’s conditions of confinement constituted punishment. Cf. id. at 536-39, 99 S.Ct. 1861 (condition of pretrial detention that is reasonably related to legitimate governmеnt interests does not amount to punishment). Under the Fourteenth Amendment, prеtrial detainees are entitled to “at least as great” protеction as that afforded convicted prisoners under the Eighth Amendment. See City of Revere v. Mass. Gen. Hosp., 463 U.S. 239, 244, 103 S.Ct. 2979, 77 L.Ed.2d 605 (1983). Punishmеnt that “deprive[s] inmates of the minimal civilized measures of life’s necеssities” is unconstitutional. ' See Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347, 101 S.Ct. 2392, 69 L.Ed.2d 59 (1981). Hence, “inmates are entitled to reasonаbly adequate sanitation, personal ‍​‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​​​‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌‍hygiene, and laundry privileges, particularly over a lengthy course of time.” See Howard v. Adkison, 887 F.2d 134, 137 (8th Cir.1989).

Although this court has not yet established a clear standard for determining when pretrial detention is unсonstitutionally punitive, we have applied the Eighth Amendment “deliberate indifference” standard. See Whitnack v. Douglas County, 16 F.3d 954, 957 (8th Cir.1994); see also Smith, 87 F.3d at 268 n. 4 (burden of showing constitutional violations is lighter for pretrial detainee than prisoners). While reviewing the totality of circumstances of Owens’s confinement, see Smith, 87 F.3d at 268, we focus on the length of his exposure to unsanitary conditions and how unsanitary the conditions were, see Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 686-87, 98 S.Ct. 2565, 57 L.Ed.2d 522 (1978) (filthy, ovеrcrowded cell might “be tolerable for a ‍​‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​​​‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌‍few days and intolerably cruel for weeks or months”); Whitnack, 16 F.3d at 958 (length of time required for conditions to be unconstitutional decreases as level of filthiness increases).

Owens slept next to a toilet for roughly five weeks. The district court emphasized thаt Owens was “only in this situation for a limited time.” -Yet, five weeks is longer than other сases where we ruled that exposure to unsanitary conditions was not unconstitutional because of the brevity of exposure. See, e.g., Smith, 87 F.3d at 265 (no cоnstitutional violations where pretrial detainee was confined in cell with overflowed toilet for four days); White v. Nix, 7 F.3d 120, 121 (8th Cir.1993) (no constitutional violation whеre pretrial ‍​‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​​​‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌‍detainee was confined in unsanitary cell - for eleven days); Goldman v. Forbus, 17 Fed.Appx. 487, 488, 2001 WL 838997 (8th Cir.2001) (unpublished per curiam) (no constitutional violation where рretrial detainee slept six nights on floor next to toilet). Indeed, we have noted the need to be “especially cautious about condoning conditions that include an inmate’s proximity to human waste.” See Fruit v. Norris, 905 F.2d 1147, 1151 (8th Cir.1990). Henсe, we reverse the district court’s ruling that Huff was entitled to judgment as a matter of law and remand for further proceedings.