The following are the minimum requirements applicable to housing:

1. (1) Written local policy shall specify the process for segregation, removal or transfer of inmates requiring medical attention.
2. (2) An inmate who is mentally ill or known to have a contagious disease shall be separated from the general population.
3. (3) Female inmates shall be completely separated from male inmates. This does not preclude rehabilitative projects and food service assignments where male and female inmates could participate together with proper supervision.

4. (4) In determining housing adequacy, the following factors shall be considered:

   1. (i) Climatic conditions.
   2. (ii) Minimum floor space.
   3. (iii) Heating.
   4. (iv) Ventilation. Each room shall allow the entrance of fresh air.
   5. (v) Lighting. Artificial light sufficient for inmates to read or work without injury to eyesight shall be provided.
   6. (vi) Sufficient toilet facilities are required.
   7. (vii) Bathing facilities shall be provided so that every inmate may use them as frequently as necessary for personal hygiene.
5. (5) All parts of the prison used by inmates shall be properly maintained and kept clean at all times.

Authority

The provisions of this § 95.226 amended under section 506 of The Administrative Code of 1929 (71 P. S. § 186).

Source

The provisions of this § 95.226 readopted May 18, 1979, 9 Pa.B. 1619; amended February 18, 2000, effective February 19, 2000, 30 Pa.B. 866. Immediately preceding text appears at serial pages (203081) to (203082) and (253017).

Notes of Decisions

Administrative Segregation

There is no provision in these regulations for a hearing to challenge a warden’s decision to place a prisoner in administrative segregation. Therefore, because the warden had unchecked power to place plaintiff in administrative segregation, the State did not create a liberty interest and plaintiff had no due process right to a hearing concerning placement and retention in administrative segregation. Williams v. Sweeney, 882 F. Supp. 1520 (E. D. Pa. 1995).

Improper Housing

Proper housing was not provided where the prison population often exceeded the maximum number of inmates that could be housed in cells and the inmates were housed on cots in the walkways outside the cells. Padgett v. Stein, 406 F.Supp. 287 (M.D. Pa. 1975).

Where prisoners were housed on cots in the walkways outside the cells because of overcrowded conditions, it was impossible to house prisoners in groups according to their classification. Padgett v. Stein, 406 F.Supp. 287 (M.D. Pa. 1975).

A pretrial detainee, who was stabbed by an inmate who had just been sentenced to death after a murder conviction, failed to establish that prison officials demonstrated deliberate indifference by violating a statutory provision stating that ‘‘[s]entenced prisoners should be housed separately from those who are only accused of having committed a crime,’’ where this provision of the Pennsylvania Code is not a mandatory requirement but rather is a recommended guideline, and where the pretrial detainee failed to present evidence that the prison officials had sufficient knowledge or notice of the risks of not following this recommendation guideline that not following it would equate to deliberate indifference. Faulcon v. Philadelphia, 18 F. Supp. 2d 537 (E. D. Pa. 1998); affirmed by 185 F.3d 861 (3rd. Cir. (Pa.) 1999); cert. denied 120 S. Ct. 1733 (U. S. 2000).

Rights of Prisoners

Due to the lack of explicit and mandatory language, the regulations pertaining to county prisons did not create a liberty interest in prisoners incarcerated therein and such prisoners have no right to notice and opportunity to be heard when their administrative status was determined. Tyler v. Rapone, 603 F. Supp. 268 (E.D. Pa. 1985).

Cross References

This section cited in 37 Pa. Code § 95.220b (relating to scope).