Eleventh Circuit· 9/3/2015

Fred Dalton Brooks v. Warden

Citations

800 F.3d 1295
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 15696
2015 WL 5157339

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

holding that prisoners have a right “not to be confined . . . in conditions lacking basic sanitation
holding that nominal damages were available in an Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim
concluding that prison officer who repeatedly “refused [the inmate’s] requests to use the toilet” was deliberately indifferent because the officer “subjected [the inmate] to derision and ridicule while he was forced to repeatedly soil himself.”
holding that a pro se prisoner failed to allege a substantial risk of serious harm when “he did not allege that he and [the aggressor prisoner] had ever been let out of their cells at the same time”
holding that a plaintiff did not face a serious risk of physical harm where he was injured only after he was released from his cell simultaneously with another inmate and where they had never been simultaneously released on a prior occasion
holding the plaintiff’s allegation that a “mere possibility” of future harm existed was insufficient; he did not “plausibly allege a strong likelihood of serious harm”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Marcus, Rosenbaum, Ginsburg

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

22 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

65 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.