Miller v. Carson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

24 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “All inmates, if kept overnight, were required to sleep in their own clothes, without benefit of a mattress, blanket, sheet, pillow or towel . . Inmates were kept under these conditions from one to eight days. There were no means for brushing their teeth or showering. . . There were drunks, mental cases, homosexuals, first offenders, and recidivists. There was sometimes vomitus, urine and feces on the floor. Attempts were made to clean and mop regularly, but conditions were so bad that acceptable sanitation was impossible. Syphilis, gonorrhea, body lice, hepatitis, and broken bones were admitted in the holding cell mix. Lighting in the cells was and is still very poor. Meals were served at regular times, but conditions were so bad that food had to be eaten while standing because of lack of sitting space. . . . [T]he whole situation could only be classified ... as “depraved”, and . . as “animal-like.” Cockroaches, mice and rats were in abundance, and despite some attempt through the use of a contract pest control company to eradicate these nuisances, they are still present. The problem was found by the Court to be so severe that inmates sometimes passed their idle time trapping mice and rats. There was evidence of rat and cockroach excreta in the kitchen and officer dining room areas. . ****** In summary, the overall environment of the inmate housing areas of the Duval County Jail gave one the psychological feeling of being trapped in a dungeon. Miller v. Carson, 401 F.Supp. 83”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Pugh v. Rainwater

2. “The right of a prisoner to reasonable physical exercise is fundamental. Where necessary, courts have required structural alterations to provide the required space, see, e. g., Hamilton v. Love, supra, 328 F.Supp. at 1193 and decree of June 22, 1971, Par. 7D; Wayne County Inmates v. Wayne County Board of Commissioners, Civ. # 173-217 Circuit Court, Wayne County, Michigan, July 28, 1972, at 25-6, and have ordered that particular periods of exercise be made available, Hamilton v. Landrieu, supra, 351 F.Supp. at 550, or that outdoor exercise areas be created, Taylor v. Sterrett, supra, 344 F.Supp. at 422. See also, Holland v. Donelon, Civ. No. 71-1442 (E.D.La., June 6, 1973) at 12 and cases cited, Brenneman v. Madigan, supra, 343 F.Supp. at 135, 140 ; Conklin v. Hancock, supra, 334 F.Supp. at 1122 and Jones v. Wittenberg, supra, 330 F.Supp. at 717 . The 50 minute per week opportunity for exercise at MHD (even supplemented by other recreational, programs) does not meet constitutional standards. 371 F.Supp. at 627 . Defendants shall forthwith take all steps necessary to employ such additional correctional personnel as is necessary to afford every detainee a period of one hour outdoor exercise, Mondays through Fridays inclusive, except in inclement weather. Defendants shall permit detainees to possess warm outer garments and shall provide warm outer garments to indigent detainees to facilitate outdoor recreation in cold weather. 396 F.Supp. at 1202 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Moore v. Janing

3. “Visitation privileges at the Duval County Jail were limited to two hours on one day of each week and were confined only to members of an inmate’s immediate adult family. Visiting hours still oc cur on Saturdays from 12:30 P.M. to 2:30 P.M. and on Sundays from 12:30 P.M. to 2:30 P.M. Visiting facilities still consist of three small scratched and cloudy visiting windows in each cellblock with malfunctioning speaker boxes below. The construction of the windows and speakers is such that there can be no eye contact at the time of the verbal communication. Visitors and inmates alike are required to shout to be heard and the arrangement prevents any privacy or physical contact whatsoever. There appears to be almost no supervision of visiting by jail personnel, undoubtedly resulting in inequities in obtaining a window due to the overcrowded condition.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Miller v. Carson