Tobacco Documents Online

219 61 LW 4698 The United States LAW WEEK 6-15- SaUiuaa, 500 U. S. (1991) (O'CoNNOR, J., dissenting). WILLIAM BENTLEY BALL. Hsrrisburg, Pa. (BALL-SKELLY, MURREN & CONNELL, THOMAS J. BERNING, and SOUTH- ERN ARIZONA LEGAL AID INC.. on the briefs) fot pctitioners; WILLIAM C. BRYSON. Acting Solidtor Gencral (STUART M. GERSON. Asst. Atty. Gen.. JOHN G. ROBERTS JR., Dpty. Sol. Gen., RONALD 1. MANN. AsatM to Sol, Gen., JEFFREY C. MAR- TIN, Dept. of Edueation Gen. Counsel, and SUSAN CRAIG, Asst. Gen. Counsel, on the briefs) for US. u amicus curfae supporting petitionetr JOHN C. RICHARDSON. Tuacn, Ariz. (GARY F. URMAN. and DECONCINI MCDONALD BRAMMER YETW W & LACY P.C., on the briefs) for respondent. No. 91-1958 DONALD L. HELLING, ET AL., PETITIONERS u. WILLIAM McKINNEY ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus No. 91-195g. Argued January 13, 1993--Decid.d June 18, 1993 Respondent MeKinney. a Nevada state pnsoner, filed ouit ag.inat petitioner pnson ofBnals, elaiming that Ius Involuntary exposure to environmenW tubaeeo smoke (ETS) from his ceilmate's and other inmates' dgaretGs posed an unreasonable ruk to hts health, thus subjecting him to erud and unusual pemshment in vndatton of the Eighth Amendment. A federal magtstrate granted petitionen' motton for a direeted verdiet, bet the Court of Appeals reversed in part, holding that MeKinney should have been permitt.d to prave that his E7S eapoaure was suf6dsnt to catutituM an unresaonable danger to his funtr, health. It redRrm.d ita deddun after this Court r.mutded for further consideration in light of wi4w v. S.ire, 501 U. S. _, In whiah the Court held that Eighth Amendment elaime arising fmm eonfinement eonditiona not formally impo.ad as • sentence for a enme requirm proof of a sobj.etive aompnnent, and that whare the daum alleges mhemane confinsment <ondtiona or failure to attend to a pnseneri medical ne.ds, the standard for that state of mmd is the •deliber.te indiR rene: standard of Esr.Be v. Ga,nb4. 429 U. S. 97. 't7te Court of Appuls held that Sdts"s subj.ctive component did not vitiate that eoart's d.termination that it would be eru,i and unusual punishment to haeaa a pnsnner in m environment exposing him to ETS levels that pose an unreasonable risk of harmmg his health--the objecttve eomponent of Mrltinmy9 elanm. Hefd: 1. It wu net improper for the Court of Appuls to decide the qu.suon whether MeKf nn.y i<latm cauld be based on possible future eRecu of ETS. From ita ex.minatian of the record, the eourt wr appanntly of the view that the daimed entitlemmt to a~oke-ft.. .nvtranment subsum.d the cium that E"f5 expason eould endang.r onek futun, not just eurrent- health. 2 By alleging that petition.rs have, with dehbsrate inefitferenee. upond hio to ETS levels that pw an unrersnnahle risk to hb future health. McRinney has stated an Eighth Amendment elaim on whieh relid could be grsntd. An iryunenon rannot be deni.d to inmates who piainly prove an unsf., BfMlu.abning mndition on the ground that nothing yet has happan.d to them. Sa. Hrtm v. F1nnry, 437 U. S. 678, 631 '(Lua, pebtienses' antral thews that only deliberate ipdi6mna to tmnates' eumnt serious hnlth prcblems is actionable xt rej.A.d Sinee the Court raunet at this iunetun nsle that MeSinney cannot possibly prove an Eighth Amendm.nt violation based on E1S espo.urs, it dso would be prsmsture to bue a raverpi m th. F.deral Gav.rnmentL argament that the harm from ETB upau» u ap.eulatiw, with no ndt euffieiently gnw to tmpliute a serious medical need, and that the expmmrs, is not eantnty te eurrent standards of denn<y. On remand, the Distriet Court must give MeKinney the opportanity to ptow his allegationa, whieh will e.qmn tLat he establish both ths subjeets.e end ebjectiv. elements n.ee..ary to prove an Eighth Mnendment vfolanon. VAth respect to the objective factor, he may have di/0eany, sshowing that he is being e:posed to unr.asonably high ETS l.vals, sinre he has baen movd ta a nw prison and no longer h." a e.llmat. who ctok.a, and smee a new state prvan poliq re.enets wnoldng to antain areas and makes reaaonable elfmt. to t.apeet ewrttakwJ wiahr with regard to doobie banking. He muat dw 11ww that the risk sf which he complains ts not one that todayi wdety dwe.e. ta telerace. 71,e -.ublective fscteq deliberate tndsfferenn, should be det.rmtned in light of the prison authorities' cur'rant attrtudes and conduet, wh,ch, evtdeneed by the new Bmokmg polt<y, may have ehang,ed considerably nnee the Court of Appuli judgment. 'Rro lnqutry into this factor alsn would be an appropnate vehiele to eonn_der argumenta regarding the reahun af pnwn admini.tration. 959 F.2d 853, alRnn.d and nmanded. WHITE, J., dehvered the opinion of the Court, in whtch REHHVUI:7. C. J., and But•KStuH, SfevFJ+s, O'CoNnotL KPHNEnY, and SnulEft, JJ., jotned. THOttAS. J., filed a dissenting optnton, in which St•.u.u, J., Jmned. JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opiaion of the Court. This case requires us to detide whether the health risk posed by involuntary exposure of a prison inmate to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) can form the basis of a claim for relief under the Eighth Amendment. I Respondent is serving a sentence of imprisonment in the Nevada prison system. At the time that this case arose, respondent was an inmate in the Nevada State Prison in Caraon City. Nevada. Respondent filed a pro se dvil rights complaint in United States District Court under Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U. S. C. ¢ 1983, naming as defend- ants the director of the prison, the warden, the associate warden, a unit counselor, and the manager of the prison store. The complaint, dated December 18, 1986, alleged that respondent was assigned to a cell with another inmate who smoked five packs of dgarettes a day. App. 6. The complaint also stated that cigarettes were sold to inmates without properly informing of the health hazards a nonamohing inmate would encounter by gharing a room with an inmate who smoked, Id., at 7-8, and that certain cigarettes burned continuously, releaaing some type of chemical, Id., at 9. Respondent complained of certain health problems allegedly caused by exposure to dgarette smoke. Respondent sought injunctive relief and damages for, inter alfa, subjecting him tu cruel and unusual punishment by jeopardizing his health. Id., at 14. The parties consented to a jury ttial before a magis- trate. The magistrate viewed respondeat's suit as present- ing two istues of law: (1) whether respondent had a constitutional right to be housed in a smoke-free environ- meat, and (2) whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to respondent's serious meaical aeeds. App. to Pet. for Cert. I2-D3. The magistrate, after citing applica- ble authority, concluded that respondent bad no constitu- tional right to be b-ee from cigarette smoke: while "society may be moving toward an opinion u to the propriety of non-smoking and a smoke-free en.iraoameat,' society cannot yet completely agree "on the resolution of theae issues." Id., at D3, D6. The magistrate found that respondent nonetheless could state a daim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs if he could prove the underlying facts, but held that respondent had failed to present evidence showing either medical problems that were traceable to dgarette smoke or deGberate indifference to them. Id., at D6-D10. The magistrate therefore granted petitioners' motion for a directed verdict and granted judgment for the defendanta. Id., at D10. The Court of Appeals affirmed the magistrate's grant of a directed verdict on the issue of deliberate indifference to respondent's immediate medical symptoms, Mdfutne9 v. Anderson, 924 F. 2d 1500, 1512 (CA9 1991). The Court of Appeals also held that the defendants were immune from liability for damages since there was at the time no clearly established law imposing liability for eioosing