Fred Dalton Brooks v. Warden

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).